Recipes

G.R. No. 202423

January 28, 2013

CHESTER UYCO, WINSTON UYCHIYONG, and CHERRY C. UYCOONG, Petitioners, vs. VICENTE LO, Respondent. RESOLUTION

wrappers. These products were manufactured by Wintrade. Lo claimed that as the assignee for the trademarks, he had not authorized Wintrade to use these marks, nor had Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal. While a prior authority was given to Wintrade’s predecessor-in-interest, Wonder Project & Development Corporation (Wonder), Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal had already revoked this authority through a letter of cancellation dated May 31, 1993.8 The kerosene burners manufactured by Wintrade have caused confusion, mistake and deception on the part of the buying public. Lo stated that the real and genuine burners are those manufactured by its agent, PBMC.

BRION, J.: We resolve the motion for reconsideration 1 dated October 22, 2012 filed by petitioners Chester Uyco, Winston Uychiyong and Cherry C. Uyco-Ong to set aside the Resolution2 dated September 12, 2012 of this Court, which affirmed the decision3 dated March 9, 2012 and the resolution4 dated June 21, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111964. The CA affirmed the resolution5 dated September 1, 2008 of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Both the CA and the DOJ found probable cause to charge the petitioners with false designation of origin, in violation of Section 169.1, in relation with Section 170, of Republic Act No. (RA) 8293, otherwise known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines."6 The disputed marks in this case are the "HIPOLITO & SEA HORSE & TRIANGULAR DEVICE," "FAMA," and other related marks, service marks and trade names of Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal appearing in kerosene burners. Respondent Vicente Lo and Philippine Burners Manufacturing Corporation (PBMC) filed a complaint against the officers of Wintrade Industrial SalesCorporation (Wintrade), including petitioners Chester Uyco, Winston Uychiyong and Cherry Uyco-Ong, and of National Hardware, including Mario Sy Chua, for violation of Section 169.1, in relation to Section 170, of RA 8293. Lo claimed in his complaint that Gasirel-Industria de Comercio e Componentes para Gass, Lda. (Gasirel), the owner of the disputed marks, executed a deed of assignment transferring these marks in his favor, to be used in all countries except for those in Europe and America.7 In a test buy, Lo purchased from National Hardware kerosene burners with the subject marks and the designations "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" in the

In their Answer, the petitioners stated that they are the officers of Wintrade which owns the subject trademarks and their variants. To prove this assertion, they submitted as evidence the certificates of registration with the Intellectual Property Office. They alleged that Gasirel, not Lo, was the real party-in-interest. They allegedly derived their authority to use the marks from Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal through Wonder, their predecessor-in-interest. Moreover, PBMC had already ceased to be a corporation and, thus, the licensing agreement between PBMC and Lo could not be given effect, particularly because the agreement was not notarized and did not contain the provisions required by Section 87 of RA 8293. The petitioners pointed out that Lo failed to sufficiently prove that the burners bought from National Hardware were those that they manufactured. But at the same time, they also argued that the marks "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" are merely descriptive and refer to the source of the design and the history of manufacture. In a separate Answer, Chua admitted that he had dealt with Wintrade for several years and had sold its products. He had not been aware that Wintrade had lost the authority to manufacture, distribute, and deal with products containing the subject marks, and he was never informed of Wintrade’s loss of authority. Thus, he could have not been part of any conspiracy. After the preliminary investigation, the Chief State Prosecutor found probable cause to indict the petitioners for violation of Section 169.1, in relation with Section 170, of RA 8293. This law punishes any person who uses in commerce any false designation of origin which is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to the origin of the product. The law seeks to protect the

1

public; thus, even if Lo does not have the legal capacity to sue, the State can still prosecute the petitioners to prevent damage and prejudice to the public. On appeal, the DOJ issued a resolution affirming the finding of probable case. It gave credence to Lo’s assertion that he is the proper assignee of the subject marks. More importantly, it took note of the petitioners’ admission that they used the words "Made in Portugal" when in fact, these products were made in the Philippines. Had they intended to refer to the source of the design or the history of the manufacture, they should have explicitly said so in their packaging. It then concluded that the petitioners’ defenses would be better ventilated during the trial and that the admissions of the petitioners make up a sufficient basis for probable cause. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ and affirmed the DOJ’s ruling. When the petitioners filed their petition before us, we denied the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary power. We find no reversible error on the part of the CA and the DOJ to merit reconsideration. The petitioners reiterate their argument that the products bought during the test buy bearing the trademarks in question were not manufactured by, or in any way connected with, the petitioners and/or Wintrade. They also allege that the words "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" refer to the origin of the design and not to the origin of the goods. The petitioners again try to convince the Court that they have not manufactured the products bearing the marks "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" that were bought during the test buy. However, their own admission and the statement given by Chua bear considerable weight. The admission in the petitioners’ Joint Affidavit is not in any way hypothetical, as they would have us believe. They narrate incidents that have happened. They refer to Wintrade’s former association with Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal; to their decision to produce the burners in the Philippines; to their use of the disputed marks; and to their justification for their use. It reads as follows:

24. As earlier mentioned, the predecessor-in-interest of Wintrade was the former exclusive licensee of Casa Hipolito SA of Portugal since the 1970’s, and that Wintrade purchased all the rights on the said trademarks prior to the closure of said company. Indeed, the burners sold by Wintrade used to be imported from Portugal, but Wintrade later on discovered the possibility of obtaining these burners from other sources or of manufacturing the same in the Philippines. Wintrade’s decision to procure these burners from sources other than Portugal is certainly its management prerogative. The presence of the words "made in Portugal" and "original Portugal" on the wrappings of the burners and on the burners themselves which are manufactured by Wintrade is an allusion to the fact that the origin of the design of said burners can be traced back to Casa Hipolito SA of Portugal, and that the history of the manufacture of said burners are rooted in Portugal. These words were not intended to deceive or cause mistake and confusion in the minds of the buying public.9 Chua, the owner of National Hardware — the place where the test buy was conducted — admits that Wintrade has been furnishing it with kerosene burners with the markings "Made in Portugal" for the past 20 years, to wit: 5. I hereby manifests (sic) that I had been dealing with Wintrade Industrial Sales Corporation (WINTRADE for brevity) for around 20 years now by buying products from it. I am not however aware that WINTRADE was no longer authorized to deal, distribute or sell kerosene burner bearing the mark HIPOLITO and SEA HORSE Device, with markings "Made in Portugal" on the wrapper as I was never informed of such by WINTRADE nor was ever made aware of any notices posted in the newspapers informing me of such fact. Had I been informed, I would have surely stopped dealing with WINTRADE.101âwphi1 Thus, the evidence shows that petitioners, who are officers of Wintrade, placed the words "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" with the disputed marks knowing fully well — because of their previous dealings with the Portuguese company — that these were the marks used in the products of Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal. More importantly, the products that Wintrade sold were admittedly produced in the Philippines, with no authority from Casa Hipolito S.A. Portugal. The law on trademarks and trade names precisely precludes a person from profiting from the business reputation built by another and from deceiving the public as to the origins of products. These

2

facts support the consistent findings of the State Prosecutor, the DOJ and the CA that probable cause exists to charge the petitioners with false designation of origin. The fact that the evidence did not come from Lo, but had been given by the petitioners, is of no significance. The argument that the words "Made in Portugal" and "Original Portugal" refer to the origin of the design and not to the origin of the goods does not negate the finding of probable cause; at the same time, it is an argument that the petitioners are not barred by this Resolution from raising as a defense during the hearing of the case. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

September 20, 2005 x----------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

TINGA, J.:

SO ORDERED. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., G.R. No. 138900 & LEVI STRAUSS (PHILS.), INC., Present: Petitioners,

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Levi Strauss & Co. (LS & Co.) and Levi Strauss (Philippines), Inc. (LSPI) assailing the Court of Appeals Decision[2] and Resolution[3] respectively dated 21 December 1998 and 10 May 1999. The questioned Decision granted respondents prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction in its Petition[4] and set aside the trial courts orders dated 15 May 1998[5] and 4 June 1998[6] which respectively granted petitioners prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

PUNO, Chairman, - versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO, TINGA, and CLINTON APPARELLE, INC., NAZARIO, JJ.

This case stemmed from the Complaint[7] for Trademark Infringement, Injunction and Damages filed by petitioners LS & Co. and LSPI against respondent Clinton Apparelle, Inc.* (Clinton Aparelle) together with an alternative defendant, Olympian Garments, Inc. (Olympian Garments), before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90.[8] The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-34252, entitled Levi Strauss & Co. and Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. v. Clinton Aparelle, Inc. and/or Olympian Garments, Inc.

Respondent. Promulgated:

3

The Complaint alleged that LS & Co., a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A., and engaged in the apparel business, is the owner by prior adoption and use since 1986 of the internationally famous Dockers and Design trademark. This ownership is evidenced by its valid and existing registrations in various member countries of the Paris Convention. In the Philippines, it has a Certificate of Registration No. 46619 in the Principal Register for use of said trademark on pants, shirts, blouses, skirts, shorts, sweatshirts and jackets under Class 25.[9]

The Dockers and Design trademark was first used in the Philippines in or about May 1988, by LSPI, a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of various products bearing trademarks owned by LS & Co. To date, LSPI continues to manufacture and sell Dockers Pants with the Dockers and Design trademark.[10]

complained of, and, specifically, for the defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, dealers and retailers or assigns, to cease and desist from manufacturing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or otherwise using denims, jeans or pants with the design herein complained of as substantially, if not exactly similar, to plaintiffs Dockers and Design trademark.

2. That after notice and hearing, and pending trial on the merits, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining defendants, their officers, employees, agents, dealers, retailers, or assigns from manufacturing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, jeans the design herein complained of as substantially, if not exactly similar, to plaintiffs Dockers and Design trademark.

3. That after trial on the merits, judgment be rendered as follows: LS & Co. and LSPI further alleged that they discovered the presence in the local market of jeans under the brand name Paddocks using a device which is substantially, if not exactly, similar to the Dockers and Design trademark owned by and registered in the name of LS & Co., without its consent. Based on their information and belief, they added, Clinton Apparelle manufactured and continues to manufacture such Paddocks jeans and other apparel.

However, since LS & Co. and LSPI are unsure if both, or just one of impleaded defendants are behind the manufacture and sale of the Paddocks jeans complained of, they brought this suit under Section 13, Rule 3[11] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[12]

a. Affirming and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction;

b. Ordering that all infringing jeans in the possession of either or both defendants as the evidence may warrant, their officers, employees, agents, retailers, dealers or assigns, be delivered to the Honorable Court of plaintiffs, and be accordingly destroyed;[13]

The Complaint contained a prayer that reads as follows:

1. That upon the filing of this complaint, a temporary restraining order be immediately issued restraining defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, dealers, retailers or assigns from committing the acts herein

Acting on the prayer for the issuance of a TRO, the trial court issued an Order[14] setting it for hearing on 5 May 1998. On said date, as respondent failed to appear despite notice and the other defendant, Olympian Garments, had yet to be notified, the hearing was re-scheduled on 14 May 1998.[15]

4

Writ of Preliminary Injunction is heard/resolved, or until further orders from this Court. On 14 May 1998, neither Clinton Apparelle nor Olympian Garments appeared. Clinton Apparelle claimed that it was not notified of such hearing. Only Olympian Garments allegedly had been issued with summons. Despite the absence of the defendants, the hearing on the application for the issuance of a TRO continued.[16]

The hearing on the application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction as embodied in the verified Complaint is set on May 26, 1998 (Tuesday) at 2:00 P.M. which setting is intransferable in character considering that the lifetime of this Temporary Restraining Order is twenty (20) days from date hereof.[18]

The following day, the trial court issued an Order[17] granting the TRO applied for, the pertinent portions of which state: On 4 June 1998, the trial court issued another Order[19] granting the writ of preliminary injunction, to wit: Considering the absence of counsel/s for the defendant/s during the summary hearing scheduled on May 5, 1998 and also during the rescheduled summary hearing held on May 14, 1998 set for the purpose of determining whether or not a Temporary Restraining Order shall be issued, this Court allowed the counsel for the plaintiffs to present on May 14, 1998 their arguments/evidences in support of their application. After hearing the arguments presented by the counsel for the plaintiffs during the summary hearing, this Court is of the considered and humble view that grave injustice and irreparable injury to the plaintiffs would arise before the matter of whether or not the application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction can be heard, and that, in the interest of justice, and in the meantime, a Temporary Restraining Order be issued.

WHEREFORE, let this Temporary Restraining Order be issued restraining the defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, dealers, retailers or assigns from committing the acts complained of in the verified Complaint, and specifically, for the defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, dealers and retailers or assigns, to cease and desist from manufacturing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise using denims, jeans or pants with the design complained of in the verified Complaint as substantially, if not exactly similar, to plaintiffs Dockers and Design trademark; until after the application/prayer for the issuance of a

ORDER

This resolves the plaintiffs application or prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as embodied in the verified complaint in this case. Parenthetically, this Court earlier issued a temporary restraining order. (see Order dated May 15, 1998; see also Order dated May 26, 1998)

After a careful perusal of the contents of the pleadings and documents on record insofar as they are pertinent to the issue under consideration, this Court finds that at this point in time, the plaintiffs appear to be entitled to the relief prayed for and this Court is of the considered belief and humble view that, without necessarily delving on the merits, the paramount interest of justice will be better served if the status quo shall be maintained and that an injunction bond of P2,500,000.00 appears to be in order. (see Sections 3 and 4, Rule 58, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

5

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the plaintiffs prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Accordingly, upon the plaintiffs filing, within ten (10) days from their receipt hereof, an injunction bond of P2,500,000.00 executed to the defendants to the effect that the plaintiffs will pay all damages the defendants may sustain by reason of this injunction in case the Court should finally decide that the plaintiffs are not entitled thereto, let a writ of preliminary injunction issue enjoining or restraining the commission of the acts complained of in the verified Complaint in this case, and specifically, for the defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, dealers and retailers or assigns or persons acting in their behalf to cease and desist from manufacturing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or otherwise using, denims, jeans or pants with the design complained of in the verified Complaint in this case, which is substantially, if not exactly, similar to plaintiffs DOCKERS and DESIGN trademark or logo as covered by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer Certificate of Registration No. 46619, until after this case shall have been decided on the merits and/or until further orders from this Court.[20]

The evidence considered by the trial court in granting injunctive relief were as follows: (1) a certified true copy of the certificate of trademark registration for Dockers and Design; (2) a pair of DOCKERS pants bearing the Dockers and Design trademark; (3) a pair of Paddocks pants bearing respondents assailed logo; (4) the Trends MBL Survey Report purportedly proving that there was confusing similarity between two marks; (5) the affidavit of one Bernabe Alajar which recounted petitioners prior adoption, use and registration of the Dockers and Design trademark; and (6) the affidavit of one Mercedes Abad of Trends MBL, Inc. which detailed the methodology and procedure used in their survey and the results thereof.[21]

Clinton Apparelle thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss[22] and a Motion for Reconsideration[23] of the Order granting the writ of preliminary injunction. Meantime, the trial court issued an Order[24] approving the bond filed by petitioners. On 22 June 1998, the trial court required[25] the parties to file their respective citation of authorities/ jurisprudence/Supreme Court decisions on whether or not the trial court may issue the writ of preliminary injunction

pending the resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent.

On 2 October 1998, the trial court denied Clinton Apparelles Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration in an Omnibus Order,[26] the pertinent portions of which provide:

After carefully going over the contents of the pleadings in relation to pertinent portions of the records, this Court is of the considered and humble view that:

On the first motion, the arguments raised in the plaintiffs aforecited Consolidated Opposition appears to be meritorious. Be that as it may, this Court would like to emphasize, among other things, that the complaint states a cause of action as provided under paragraphs 1 to 18 thereof.

On the second motion, the arguments raised in the plaintiffs aforecited Consolidated Opposition likewise appear to be impressed with merit. Besides, there appears to be no strong and cogent reason to reconsider and set aside this Courts Order dated June 4, 1998 as it has been shown so far that the trademark or logo of defendants is substantially, if not exactly, similar to plaintiffs DOCKERS and DESIGN trademark or logo as covered by BPTTT Certificate of Registration No. 46619 even as the BPTTT Certificate of Registration No. 49579 of Clinton Apparelle, Inc. is only for the mark or word PADDOCKS (see Records, p. 377) In any event, this Court had issued an Order dated June 18, 1998 for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction after the plaintiffs filed the required bond of P2,500,000.00.

6

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the aforecited Motion To Dismiss and Motion For Reconsideration are both DENIED for lack of merit, and accordingly, this Courts Order dated June 18, 1998 for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is REITERATED so the writ of preliminary injunction could be implemented unless the implementation thereof is restrained by the Honorable Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals also held that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is questionable. In its opinion, herein petitioners failed to sufficiently establish its material and substantial right to have the writ issued. Secondly, the Court of Appeals observed that the survey presented by petitioners to support their contentions was commissioned by petitioners. The Court of Appeals remarked that affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered to be inferior to testimony given in open court. The appellate court also considered that the injury petitioners have suffered or are currently suffering may be compensated in terms of monetary consideration, if after trial, a final judgment shall be rendered in their favor.[31]

The writ of preliminary injunction was thereafter issued on 8 October 1998. [27] In addition, the Court of Appeals strongly believed that the implementation of the questioned writ would effectively shut down respondents business, which in its opinion should not be sanctioned. The Court of Appeals thus set aside the orders of the trial court dated 15 May 1998 and 4 June 1998, respectively issuing a temporary restraining order and granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Thus, Clinton Apparelle filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition[28] for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, assailing the orders of the trial court dated 15 May 1998, 4 June 1998 and 2 October 1998.

On 20 October 1998, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution[29] requiring herein petitioners to file their comment on the Petition and at the same time issued the prayed-for temporary restraining order.

The appellate court rendered on 21 December 1998 its now assailed Decision granting Clinton Apparelles petition. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not follow the procedure required by law for the issuance of a temporary restraining order as Clinton Apparelle was not duly notified of the date of the summary hearing for its issuance. Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that the TRO had been improperly issued.[30]

With the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration,[32] petitioners are now before this Court seeking a review of the appellate courts Decision and Resolution. LS & Co. and LSPI claim that the Court of Appeals committed serious error in: (1) disregarding the well-defined limits of the writ of certiorari that questions on the sufficiency of evidence are not to be resolved in such a petition; (2) in holding that there was no confusion between the two marks; (3) in ruling that the erosion of petitioners trademark is not protectable by injunction; (4) in ignoring the procedure previously agreed on by the parties and which was adopted by the trial court; and (5) in declaring that the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court will lead to the closure of respondents business.

7

In its Comment,[33] Clinton Apparelle maintains that only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It asserts that the question of whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) disregarding the survey evidence; (2) ruling that there was no confusion between the two marks; and (c) finding that the erosion of petitioners trademark may not be protected by injunction, are issues not within the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Clinton Apparelle also contends that the Court of Appeals acted correctly when it overturned the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court. It believes that the issued writ in effect disturbed the status quo and disposed of the main case without trial.

There is no merit in the petition. At issue is whether the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by the trial court was proper and whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the orders of the trial court. Section 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court defines a preliminary injunction as an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order requiring a party or a court, agency or a person to refrain from a particular act or acts. Injunction is accepted as the strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy to be used cautiously as it affects the respective rights of the parties, and only upon full conviction on the part of the court of its extreme necessity. An extraordinary remedy, injunction is designed to preserve or maintain the status quo of things and is generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts until the merits of the case can be heard. [34] It may be resorted to only by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action.[35] It is resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences, which cannot be remedied under any standard compensation. The resolution of an application for a writ of preliminary injunction rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special recourse before the main case can be heard in due course of proceedings.[36]

Section 3, Rule 58, of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction:

SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;

(b) That the commission, continuance, or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. Under the cited provision, a clear and positive right especially calling for judicial protection must be shown. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. There must exist an actual right.[37] There must be a patent showing by the complaint that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is to be directed are violative of said right.[38] There are generally two kinds of preliminary injunction: (1) a prohibitory injunction which commands a party to refrain from doing a particular act; and (2) a mandatory injunction which commands the performance of some positive act to correct a wrong in the past.[39] The Court of Appeals did not err in reviewing proof adduced by petitioners to support its application for the issuance of the writ. While the matter of the

8

issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, this discretion must be exercised based upon the grounds and in the manner provided by law. The exercise of discretion by the trial court in injunctive matters is generally not interfered with save in cases of manifest abuse.[40] And to determine whether there was abuse of discretion, a scrutiny must be made of the bases, if any, considered by the trial court in granting injunctive relief. Be it stressed that injunction is the strong arm of equity which must be issued with great caution and deliberation, and only in cases of great injury where there is no commensurate remedy in damages.[41] In the present case, we find that there was scant justification for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners anchor their legal right to Dockers and Design trademark on the Certificate of Registration issued in their favor by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer.* According to Section 138 of Republic Act No. 8293,[42] this Certificate of Registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the registrants ownership of the mark and of the exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods or services and those that are related thereto specified in the certificate. Section 147.1 of said law likewise grants the owner of the registered mark the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owners consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered if such use results in a likelihood of confusion. However, attention should be given to the fact that petitioners registered trademark consists of two elements: (1) the word mark Dockers and (2) the wing-shaped design or logo. Notably, there is only one registration for both features of the trademark giving the impression that the two should be considered as a single unit. Clinton Apparelles trademark, on the other hand, uses the Paddocks word mark on top of a logo which according to petitioners is a slavish imitation of the Dockers design. The two trademarks apparently differ in their word marks (Dockers and Paddocks), but again according to petitioners, they employ similar or identical logos. It could thus be said that respondent only appropriates petitioners logo and not the word mark Dockers; it uses only a portion of the registered trademark and not the whole.

Given the single registration of the trademark Dockers and Design and considering that respondent only uses the assailed device but a different word mark, the right to prevent the latter from using the challenged Paddocks device is far from clear. Stated otherwise, it is not evident whether the single registration of the trademark Dockers and Design confers on the owner the right to prevent the use of a fraction thereof in the course of trade. It is also unclear whether the use without the owners consent of a portion of a trademark registered in its entirety constitutes material or substantial invasion of the owners right. It is likewise not settled whether the wing-shaped logo, as opposed to the word mark, is the dominant or central feature of petitioners trademarkthe feature that prevails or is retained in the minds of the publican imitation of which creates the likelihood of deceiving the public and constitutes trademark infringement.[43] In sum, there are vital matters which have yet and may only be established through a full-blown trial. From the above discussion, we find that petitioners right to injunctive relief has not been clearly and unmistakably demonstrated. The right has yet to be determined. Petitioners also failed to show proof that there is material and substantial invasion of their right to warrant the issuance of an injunctive writ. Neither were petitioners able to show any urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Petitioners wish to impress upon the Court the urgent necessity for injunctive relief, urging that the erosion or dilution of their trademark is protectable. They assert that a trademark owner does not have to wait until the mark loses its distinctiveness to obtain injunctive relief, and that the mere use by an infringer of a registered mark is already actionable even if he has not yet profited thereby or has damaged the trademark owner. Trademark dilution is the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of: (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties; or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception. Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark is entitled to an injunction against another persons commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark. This is intended to protect famous marks from subsequent uses that blur distinctiveness of the mark or tarnish or disparage it.[44]

9

Based on the foregoing, to be eligible for protection from dilution, there has to be a finding that: (1) the trademark sought to be protected is famous and distinctive; (2) the use by respondent of Paddocks and Design began after the petitioners mark became famous; and (3) such subsequent use defames petitioners mark. In the case at bar, petitioners have yet to establish whether Dockers and Design has acquired a strong degree of distinctiveness and whether the other two elements are present for their cause to fall within the ambit of the invoked protection. The Trends MBL Survey Report which petitioners presented in a bid to establish that there was confusing similarity between two marks is not sufficient proof of any dilution that the trial court must enjoin. The Court also finds that the trial courts order granting the writ did not adequately detail the reasons for the grant, contrary to our ruling in University of the Philippines v. Hon. Catungal Jr., [45] wherein we held that: The trial court must state its own findings of fact and cite particular law to justify grant of preliminary injunction. Utmost care in this regard is demanded.[46] The trial court in granting the injunctive relief tersely ratiocinated that the plaintiffs appear to be entitled to the relief prayed for and this Court is of the considered belief and humble view that, without necessarily delving on the merits, the paramount interest of justice will be better served if the status quo shall be maintained. Clearly, this statement falls short of the requirement laid down by the above-quoted case. Similarly, in Developers Group of Companies, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[47] we held that it was not enough for the trial court, in its order granting the writ, to simply say that it appeared after hearing that plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for. In addition, we agree with the Court of Appeals in its holding that the damages the petitioners had suffered or continue to suffer may be compensated in terms of monetary consideration. As held in Government Service Insurance System v. Florendo:[48]

a writ of injunction should never have been issued when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction rests in the

probability of irreparable injury, inadequacy of pecuniary estimation and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused. [49] We also believe that the issued injunctive writ, if allowed, would dispose of the case on the merits as it would effectively enjoin the use of the Paddocks device without proof that there is basis for such action. The prevailing rule is that courts should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that would in effect dispose of the main case without trial.[50] There would be a prejudgment of the main case and a reversal of the rule on the burden of proof since it would assume the proposition which petitioners are inceptively bound to prove.[51] Parenthetically, we find no flaw in the Court of Appeals disquisition on the consequences of the issued injunction. An exercise of caution, we believe that such reflection is necessary to weigh the alleged entitlement to the writ vis--vis its possible effects. The injunction issued in the instant case is of a serious nature as it tends to do more than to maintain the status quo. In fact, the assailed injunction if sustained would bring about the result desired by petitioners without a trial on the merits. Then again, we believe the Court of Appeals overstepped its authority when it declared that the alleged similarity as to the two logos is hardly confusing to the public. The only issue brought before the Court of Appeals through respondents Petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court involved the grave abuse of discretion allegedly committed by the trial court in granting the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction. The appellate court in making such a statement went beyond that issue and touched on the merits of the infringement case, which remains to be decided by the trial court. In our view, it was premature for the Court of Appeals to declare that there is no confusion between the two devices or logos. That matter remains to be decided on by the trial court. Finally, we have no contention against the procedure adopted by the trial court in resolving the application for an injunctive writ and we believe that respondent was accorded due process. Due process, in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard. And in applications for preliminary injunction, the requirement of hearing and prior notice before injunction may issue has been relaxed to the point that not all petitions for preliminary injunction must undergo a trial-type hearing, it being a hornbook doctrine that a formal or

10

trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process. Due process simply means giving every contending party the opportunity to be heard and the court to consider every piece of evidence presented in their favor. Accordingly, this Court has in the case of Co v. Calimag, Jr.,[52] rejected a claim of denial of due process where such claimant was given the opportunity to be heard, having submitted his counter-affidavit and memorandum in support of his position.[53]

"THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE"; (c) ordered petitioners to cease and desist from using "ST. FRANCIS" singly or as part of a composite mark; and (d) ordered petitioners to jointly and severally pay respondent St. Francis Square Development Corporation (respondent) a fine in the amount of ₱200,000.00.

After a careful consideration of the facts and arguments of the parties, the Court finds that petitioners did not adequately prove their entitlement to the injunctive writ. In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the applicant, an order of the trial court granting the issuance of an injunctive writ will be set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.[54] Conformably, the Court of Appeals was correct in setting aside the assailed orders of the trial court.

Respondent – a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business and the developer of the St. Francis Square Commercial Center, built sometime in 1992, located at Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila (Ortigas Center)4 – filed separate complaints against petitioners before the IPO - Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), namely: (a) an intellectual property violation case for unfair competition, false or fraudulent declaration, and damages arising from petitioners’ use and filing of applications for the registration of the marks "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" and "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE," docketed as IPV Case No. 10-2005-00030 (IPV Case); and (b) an inter partes case opposing the petitioners’ application for registration of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" for use relative to the latter’s business, particularly the construction of permanent buildings or structures for residential and office purposes, docketed as Inter PartesCase No. 14-2006-00098 (St. Francis Towers IP Case); and (c) an inter partes case opposing the petitioners’ application for registration of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE," docketed as IPC No. 14-2007-00218 (St. Francis Shangri-La IP Case).5

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 21 December 1998 and its Resolution dated 10 May 1999 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 190706

July 21, 2014

SHANG PROPERTIES REALTY CORPORATION (formerly THE SHANG GRAND TOWER CORPORATION) and SHANG PROPERTIES, INC. (formerly EDSA PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.), Petitioners, vs. ST. FRANCIS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 is the Decision2 dated December 18, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 105425 which affirmed with modification the Decision3 dated September 3, 2008 of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Director-General. The CA: (a) affirmed the denial of the application for registration of the mark "ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" filed by petitioners Shang Properties Realty Corporation and Shang Properties, Inc. (petitioners); ( b) found petitioners to have committed unfair competition for using the marks "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" and

The Facts

In its complaints, respondent alleged that it has used the mark "ST. FRANCIS" to identify its numerous property development projects located at Ortigas Center, such as the aforementioned St. Francis Square Commercial Center, a shopping mall called the "St. Francis Square," and a mixed-use realty project plan thatincludes the St. Francis Towers. Respondent added that as a result of its continuous use of the mark "ST. FRANCIS" in its real estate business,it has gained substantial goodwill with the public that consumers and traders closely identify the said mark with its property development projects. Accordingly, respondent claimed that petitioners could not have the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" registered in their names, and that petitioners’ use of the marks "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" and "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE" in their own real estate development projects constitutes unfair competition as well as false or fraudulent declaration.6

11

Petitioners denied committing unfair competition and false or fraudulent declaration, maintaining that they could register the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" and "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE" under their names. They contended that respondent is barred from claiming ownership and exclusive use ofthe mark "ST. FRANCIS" because the same is geographically descriptive ofthe goods or services for which it is intended to be used.7 This is because respondent’s as well as petitioners’ real estate development projects are locatedalong the streets bearing the name "St. Francis," particularly, St. FrancisAvenue and St. Francis Street (now known as Bank Drive),8 both within the vicinity of the Ortigas Center. The BLA Rulings On December 19, 2006, the BLA rendered a Decision9 in the IPV Case, and found that petitioners committed acts of unfair competition against respondent by its use of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" but not with its use of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE." It, however, refused to award damages in the latter’s favor, considering that there was no evidence presented to substantiate the amount of damages it suffered due to the former’s acts. The BLA found that "ST. FRANCIS," being a name of a Catholic saint, may be considered as an arbitrary mark capable of registration when used in real estate development projects as the name has no direct connection or significance when used in association with real estate. The BLA neither deemed "ST. FRANCIS" as a geographically descriptive mark, opiningthat there is no specific lifestyle, aura, quality or characteristic that the real estate projects possess except for the fact that they are located along St. Francis Avenueand St. Francis Street (now known as Bank Drive), Ortigas Center. In this light, the BLA found that while respondent’s use of the mark "ST. FRANCIS" has not attained exclusivity considering that there are other real estate development projects bearing the name "St. Francis" in other areas,10 it must nevertheless be pointed out that respondent has been known to be the only real estate firm to transact business using such name within the Ortigas Center vicinity. Accordingly, the BLA considered respondent to have gained goodwill and reputation for its mark, which therefore entitles it to protection against the use by other persons, at least, to those doing business within the Ortigas Center.11 Meanwhile, on March 28, 2007, the BLA rendered a Decision12 in the St. Francis Towers IP Case, denying petitioners’ application for registration of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS." Excluding the word "TOWERS" in view of petitioners’ disclaimer thereof, the BLA ruled that petitioners cannot

register the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS" since it is confusingly similar to respondent’s"ST. FRANCIS" marks which are registered with the Department of Trade and Industry(DTI). It held that respondent had a better right over the use of the mark "ST. FRANCIS" because of the latter’s appropriation and continuous usage thereof for a long period of time.13 A little over a year after, or on March 31, 2008, the BLA then rendered a Decision14 in the St. Francis Shangri-La IP Case, allowing petitioners’ application for registration of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE." It found that respondent cannot preclude petitioners from using the mark "ST. FRANCIS" as the records show that the former’s use thereof had not been attended with exclusivity. More importantly, it found that petitioners had adequately appended the word "Shangri-La" to its composite mark to distinguish it from that of respondent, in which case, the former had removed any likelihood of confusion that may arise from the contemporaneous use by both parties of the mark "ST. FRANCIS." Both parties appealed the decision in the IPV Case, while petitioners appealed the decision in the St. Francis Towers IP Case. Due to the identity of the parties and issues involved, the IPO Director-General ordered the consolidation of the separate appeals.15 Records are, however, bereft of any showing that the decision in the St. Francis Shangri-La IP Casewas appealed by either party and, thus, is deemed to have lapsed into finality. The IPO Director-General Ruling In a Decision16 dated September 3, 2008, then IPO Director-General Adrian S. Cristobal, Jr. affirmedthe rulings of the BLA that: (a) petitioners cannot register the mark "THEST. FRANCIS TOWERS"; and (b) petitioners are not guilty of unfair competition in its use of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE." However, the IPO DirectorGeneral reversed the BLA’s findingthat petitioners committed unfair competition through their use of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS," thus dismissing such charge. He foundthat respondent could not be entitled to the exclusive use of the mark "ST. FRANCIS," even at least to the locality where it conducts its business, because it is a geographically descriptive mark, considering that it was petitioners’ as well as respondent’s intention to use the mark "ST. FRANCIS"in order to identify, or at least associate, their real estate development projects/businesses with the place or location where they are situated/conducted, particularly, St. Francis Avenue and St. Francis Street (now known as Bank Drive), Ortigas Center. He further opined that respondent’s registration of the name "ST. FRANCIS" with the DTI is

12

irrelevant since what should be controlling are the trademark registrations with the IPO itself.17 Also, the IPO Director-General held that since the parties are both engaged in the real estate business, it would be "hard to imagine that a prospective buyer will be enticed to buy, rent or purchase [petitioners’] goods or servicesbelieving that this is owned by [respondent] simply because of the name ‘ST. FRANCIS.’ The prospective buyer would necessarily discuss things with the representatives of [petitioners] and would readily know that this does not belong to [respondent]."18

The Issue Before the Court

Disagreeing solely with the IPO Director-General’s ruling on the issue of unfair competition (the bone of contention in the IPV Case), respondent elevated the sameto the CA.

The petition is meritorious.

In contrast, records do not show that either party appealed the IPO DirectorGeneral’s ruling on the issue ofthe registrability of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" (the bone of contention in the St. Francis Towers IP Case). As such, said pronouncement isalso deemed to have lapsed into finality. The CA Ruling In a Decision19 dated December 18, 2009, the CA found petitioners guilty of unfair competition not only withrespect to their use of the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" but alsoof the mark "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE." Accordingly, itordered petitioners to cease and desist from using "ST. FRANCIS" singly or as part of a composite mark, as well as to jointly and severally pay respondent a fine in the amount of ₱200,000.00. The CA did not adhere to the IPO Director-General’s finding that the mark "ST. FRANCIS" is geographically descriptive, and ruled that respondent – which has exclusively and continuously used the mark "ST. FRANCIS" for more than a decade, and,hence, gained substantial goodwill and reputation thereby – is very muchentitled to be protected against the indiscriminate usage by other companies of the trademark/name it has so painstakingly tried to establish and maintain. Further, the CA stated that even on the assumption that "ST. FRANCIS" was indeed a geographically descriptive mark, adequateprotection must still begiven to respondent pursuant to the Doctrine of Secondary Meaning.20 Dissatisfied, petitioners filed the present petition.

With the decisions in both Inter PartesCases having lapsed into finality, the sole issue thus left for the Court’s resolution is whether or not petitioners are guilty of unfair competition in using the marks "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" and "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE." The Court’s Ruling

Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293,21 otherwise known as the "Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines" (IP Code), provides for the rules and regulations on unfair competition. To begin, Section 168.1 qualifies who is entitled to protection against unfair competition. It states that "[a]person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufacturesor deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected inthe same manner as other property rights." Section 168.2proceeds to the core of the provision, describing forthwith who may be found guilty of and subject to an action of unfair competition – that is, "[a]ny person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result x x x." Without limiting its generality, Section 168.3goes on to specify examples of acts which are considered as constitutive of unfair competition, viz.: 168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of protection against unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition: (a) Any person who is selling his goods and gives them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are

13

contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor ofsuch goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose; (b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the service of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or (c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another. Finally, Section 168.4 dwells on a matter of procedure by stating that the "[t]he remedies provided by Sections 156,22 157,23 and 16124 shall apply mutatis mutandis." The statutory attribution of the unfair competition concept is wellsupplemented by jurisprudential pronouncements. In the recent case of Republic Gas Corporation v. Petron Corporation,25 the Court has echoed the classic definition of the term which is "‘the passing off (or palming off) or attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public.’ Passing off (or palming off) takes place where the defendant, by imitative devices on the general appearance of the goods, misleads prospective purchasers into buying his merchandise under the impression that they are buying that of his competitors. [In other words], the defendant gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of his competitor with the intention of deceiving the publicthat the goods are those of his competitor."26 The "true test" of unfair competition has thus been "whether the acts of the defendant have the intent of deceiving or are calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer making his purchases under the ordinary conditions of theparticular trade to which the controversy relates." Based on the foregoing, it is therefore essential to prove the existence of fraud, or the intent to deceive, actual or probable,27 determined through a judicious scrutiny of the factual circumstances attendant to a particular case.28

Here, the Court finds the element of fraud to be wanting; hence, there can be no unfair competition. The CA’scontrary conclusion was faultily premised on its impression that respondenthad the right to the exclusive use of the mark "ST. FRANCIS," for which the latter had purportedly established considerable goodwill. What the CA appears to have disregarded or been mistaken in its disquisition, however, is the geographicallydescriptive nature of the mark "ST. FRANCIS" which thus bars its exclusive appropriability, unless a secondary meaning is acquired. As deftly explained in the U.S. case of Great Southern Bank v. First Southern Bank:29 "[d]escriptive geographical terms are inthe ‘public domain’ in the sense that every seller should have the right to inform customers of the geographical origin of his goods. A ‘geographically descriptive term’ is any noun or adjective that designates geographical location and would tend to be regarded by buyers as descriptive of the geographic location of origin of the goods or services. A geographically descriptive term can indicate any geographic location on earth, such as continents, nations, regions, states, cities, streets and addresses, areas of cities, rivers, and any other location referred to by a recognized name. In order to determine whether or not the geographic term in question is descriptively used, the following question is relevant: (1) Is the mark the name of the place or region from which the goods actually come? If the answer is yes, then the geographic term is probably used in a descriptive sense, and secondary meaning is required for protection."30 In Burke-Parsons-Bowlby Corporation v. Appalachian Log Homes, Inc.,31 it was held that secondary meaningis established when a descriptive mark no longer causes the public to associate the goods with a particular place, but to associate the goods with a particular source.In other words, it is not enough that a geographically-descriptive mark partakes of the name of a place known generally to the public to be denied registration as it is also necessary to show that the public would make a goods/place association – that is, to believe that the goods for which the mark is sought to be registered originatein that place.1âwphi1 To hold sucha belief, it is necessary, of course, that the purchasers perceive the mark as a place name, from which the question of obscurity or remoteness then comes to the fore.32 The more a geographical area is obscure and remote, it becomes less likely that the public shall have a goods/place association with such area and thus, the mark may not be deemed as geographically descriptive. However, where there is no genuine issue that the geographical significance of a term is its primary significanceand where the geographical place is neither obscure nor remote, a public association of the goods with the place

14

may ordinarily be presumed from the fact that the applicant’s own goods come from the geographical place named in the mark.33 Under Section 123.234 of the IP Code, specific requirements have to be met in order to conclude that a geographically-descriptive mark has acquired secondary meaning, to wit: (a) the secondary meaning must have arisen as a result of substantial commercial use of a mark in the Philippines; (b) such use must result in the distinctiveness of the mark insofar as the goods or theproducts are concerned; and (c) proof of substantially exclusive and continuous commercial use in the Philippines for five (5) years beforethe date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made. Unless secondary meaning has been established, a geographically-descriptive mark, dueto its general public domain classification, is perceptibly disqualified from trademark registration. Section 123.1(j) of the IP Code states this rule as follows: SEC. 123. Registrability. – 123.1 A mark cannot be registered if it: xxxx (j) Consists exclusively of signs orof indications that may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time or production of the goods or rendering of the services, or other characteristics of the goods or services; (Emphasis supplied) x x x x Cognizant of the foregoing, the Court disagrees with the CA that petitioners committed unfair competition due to the mistaken notion that petitioner had established goodwill for the mark "ST. FRANCIS" precisely because said circumstance, by and of itself, does not equateto fraud under the parameters of Section 168 of the IP Code as above-cited. In fact, the records are bereft of any showing thatpetitioners gave their goods/services the general appearance that it was respondent which was offering the same to the public. Neither did petitioners employ any means to induce the public towards a false belief that it was offering respondent’s goods/services. Nor did petitioners make any false statement or commit acts tending to discredit the goods/services offered by respondent. Accordingly, the element of fraud which is the core of unfair competition had not been established.

Besides, respondent was not able toprove its compliance with the requirements stated in Section 123.2 of the IP Code to be able to conclude that it acquired a secondary meaning – and, thereby, an exclusive right – to the "ST. FRANCIS" mark, which is, as the IPO Director-General correctly pointed out, geographically-descriptive of the location in which its realty developments have been built, i.e., St. Francis Avenue and St. Francis Street (now known as "Bank Drive"). Verily, records would reveal that while it is true that respondent had been using the mark "ST. FRANCIS" since 1992, its use thereof has been merely confined to its realty projects within the Ortigas Center, as specifically mentioned.As its use of the mark is clearly limited to a certain locality, it cannot be said thatthere was substantial commercial use of the same recognizedall throughout the country. Neither is there any showing of a mental recognition in buyers’ and potential buyers’ minds that products connected with the mark "ST. FRANCIS" are associated with the same source35 – that is, the enterprise of respondent. Thus, absent any showing that there exists a clear goods/service-association between the realty projects located in the aforesaid area and herein respondent as the developer thereof, the latter cannot besaid to have acquired a secondary meaning as to its use of the "ST. FRANCIS" mark. In fact, even on the assumption that secondary meaning had been acquired, said finding only accords respondents protectional qualification under Section 168.1 of the IP Code as above quoted. Again, this does not automatically trigger the concurrence of the fraud element required under Section 168.2 of the IP Code, as exemplified by the acts mentioned in Section 168.3 of the same. Ultimately, as earlier stated, there can be no unfair competition without this element. In this respect, considering too the notoriety of the Shangri-La brand in the real estate industry which dilutes petitioners' propensity to merely ride on respondent's goodwill, the more reasonable conclusion is that the former's use of the marks "THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS" and "THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE" was meant only to identify, or at least associate, their real estate project/s with its geographical location. As aptly observed by the IPO DirectorGeneral:36 In the case at hand, the parties are business competitors engaged in real estate or property development, providing goods and services directly connected thereto. The "goods" or "products" or "services" are real estate and the goods and the services attached to it or directly related to it, like sale or lease of condominium units, offices, and commercial spaces, such as restaurants, and other businesses. For these kinds of goods or services there can be no description of its geographical origin as precise and

15

accurate as that of the name of the place where they are situated. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

ABI "has not committed trademark infringement or unfair competition against" SMC (p. 189, Rollo).

Hence, for all the reasons above-discussed, the Court hereby grants the instant petition, and, thus, exonerates petitioners from the charge of unfair competition in the IPV Case. As the decisions in the Inter Partes Cases were not appealed, the registrability issues resolved therein are hereby deemed to have attained finality and, therefore, are now executory.

SMC appealed to the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. CV No. 28104). On September 30, 1991, the Court of Appeals (Sixth Division composed of Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr., chairman and ponente, and Justices Venancio D. Aldecoa Jr. and Filemon H. Mendoza, as members) reversed the trial court. The dispositive part of the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 18, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 105425 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated September 3, 2008 of the Intellectual Property Office-Director General is REINSTATED.

In the light of the foregoing analysis and under the plain language of the applicable rule and principle on the matter, We find the defendant Asia Brewery Incorporated GUILTY of infringement of trademark and unfair competition. The decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED, and a new judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:

SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 103543 July 5, 1993 ASIA BREWERY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents. Abad Santos & Associates and Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for petitioner. Roco, Bunag, Kapunan Law Office for private respondent. GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.: On September 15, 1988, San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a complaint against Asia Brewery Inc. (ABI) for infringement of trademark and unfair competition on account of the latter's BEER PALE PILSEN or BEER NA BEER product which has been competing with SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN for a share of the local beer market. (San Miguel Corporation vs. Asia Brewery Inc., Civ. Case. No. 56390, RTC Branch 166, Pasig, Metro Manila.). On August 27, 1990, a decision was rendered by the trial Court, presided over by Judge Jesus O. Bersamira, dismissing SMC's complaint because

(1) The defendant Asia Brewery Inc. its officers, agents, servants and employees are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from manufacturing, putting up, selling, advertising, offering or announcing for sale, or supplying Beer Pale Pilsen, or any similar preparation, manufacture or beer in bottles and under labels substantially identical with or like the said bottles and labels of plaintiff San Miguel Corporation employed for that purpose, or substantially identical with or like the bottles and labels now employed by the defendant for that purpose, or in bottles or under labels which are calculated to deceive purchasers and consumers into the belief that the beer is the product of the plaintiff or which will enable others to substitute, sell or palm off the said beer of the defendant as and for the beer of the plaintiff-complainant. (2) The defendant Asia Brewery Inc. is hereby ordered to render an accounting and pay the San Miguel Corporation double any and all the payments derived by defendant from operations of its business and the sale of goods bearing the mark "Beer Pale Pilsen" estimated at approximately Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00); to recall all its products bearing the mark "Beer Pale Pilsen" from its retailers and deliver these as well as all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and advertisements bearing the infringing mark and all plates, molds, materials and other means of making the same to the Court authorized to execute this judgment for destruction.

16

(3) The defendant is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as moral damages and Half a Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) by way of exemplary damages. (4) The defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of P250,000.00 plus costs to this suit. (p. 90, Rollo.) Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by ABI, the above dispositive part of the decision, was modified by the separate opinions of the Special Sixth Division 1 so that it should read thus: In the light of the foregoing analysis and under the plain language of the applicable rule and principle on the matter, We find the defendant Asia Brewery Incorporated GUILTY of infringement of trademark and unfair competition. The decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED, and a new judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows: (1) The defendant Asia Brewery Inc., its officers, agents, servants and employees are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from manufacturing, putting up, selling, advertising, offering or announcing for sale, or supplying Beer Pale Pilsen, or any similar preparation, manufacture or beer in bottles and under labels substantially identical with or like the said bottles and labels of plaintiff San Miguel Corporation employed for that purpose, or substantially identical with or like the bottles and labels now employed by the defendant for that purpose, or in bottles or under labels which are calculated to deceive purchasers and consumers into the belief that the beer if the product of the plaintiff or which will enable others to substitute, sell or palm off the said beer of the defendant as and for the beer of the plaintiff-complainant. (2) The defendant Asia Brewery Inc. is hereby ordered 2 to recall all its products bearing the mark Beer Pale Pilsen from its retailers and deliver these as well as all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and advertisements bearing the infringing mark and all plates, molds, materials and other means of making the same to the Court authorized to execute this judgment for destruction. (3) The defendant is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as moral damages and Half a Million Pesos (P500,000.00) by way of exemplary damages.

(4) The defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of P250,000.00 plus costs of this suit. In due time, ABI appealed to this Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The lone issue in this appeal is whether ABI infringes SMC's trademark: San Miguel Pale Pilsen with Rectangular Hops and Malt Design, and thereby commits unfair competition against the latter. It is a factual issue (Phil. Nut Industry Inc. v. Standard Brands Inc., 65 SCRA 575) and as a general rule, the findings of the Court of Appeals upon factual questions are conclusive and ought not to be disturbed by us. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, and they are: (1) When the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference of the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3)

Where there is grave abuse of discretion;

(4)

When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and the same are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (6) court;

When the findings of said court are contrary to those of the trial

(7) When the findings are without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (9) When the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted on record. (Reynolds Philippine Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 220, 223 citing, Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 597; Manlapaz vs. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 238; Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593, 609;

17

Guita vs. CA, 139 SCRA 576; Casanayan vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 333, 336; also Apex Investment and Financing Corp. vs. IAC, 166 SCRA 458 [citing Tolentino vs. De Jesus, 56 SCRA 167; Carolina Industries, Inc. vs. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., 97 SCRA 734; Manero vs. CA, 102 SCRA 817; and Moran, Jr. vs. CA, 133 SCRA 88].) Under any of these exceptions, the Court has to review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the record (Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 411, 420.) Where findings of the Court of Appeals and trial court are contrary to each other, the Supreme Court may scrutinize the evidence on record. (Cruz vs. CA, 129 SCRA 222, 227.) The present case is one of the exceptions because there is no concurrence between the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the lone factual issue of whether ABI, by manufacturing and selling its BEER PALE PILSEN in amber colored steinie bottles of 320 ml. capacity with a white painted rectangular label has committed trademark infringement and unfair competition against SMC. Infringement of trademark is a form of unfair competition (Clarke vs. Manila Candy Co., 36 Phil. 100, 106). Sec. 22 of Republic Act No. 166, otherwise known as the Trademark Law, defines what constitutes infringement: Sec. 22. Infringement, what constitutes. — Any person who shall use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such mark or trade-name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services, shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided. (Emphasis supplied.) This definition implies that only registered trade marks, trade names and service marks are protected against infringement or unauthorized use by another or others. The use of someone else's registered trademark, trade

name or service mark is unauthorized, hence, actionable, if it is done "without the consent of the registrant." (Ibid.) The registered trademark of SMC for its pale pilsen beer is: San Miguel Pale Pilsen With Rectangular Hops and Malt Design. (Philippine Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer Trademark Certificate of Registration No. 36103, dated 23 Oct. 1986, (p. 174, Rollo.) As described by the trial court in its decision (Page 177, Rollo): . . . . a rectangular design [is] bordered by what appears to be minute grains arranged in rows of three in which there appear in each corner hop designs. At the top is a phrase written in small print "Reg. Phil. Pat. Off." and at the bottom "Net Contents: 320 Ml." The dominant feature is the phrase "San Miguel" written horizontally at the upper portion. Below are the words "Pale Pilsen" written diagonally across the middle of the rectangular design. In between is a coat of arms and the phrase "Expertly Brewed." The "S" in "San" and the "M" of "Miguel," "P" of "Pale" and "Pilsen" are written in Gothic letters with fine strokes of serifs, the kind that first appeared in the 1780s in England and used for printing German as distinguished from Roman and Italic. Below "Pale Pilsen" is the statement "And Bottled by" (first line, "San Miguel Brewery" (second line), and "Philippines" (third line). (p. 177, Rollo; Emphasis supplied.) On the other hand, ABI's trademark, as described by the trial court, consists of: . . . a rectangular design bordered by what appear to be buds of flowers with leaves. The dominant feature is "Beer" written across the upper portion of the rectangular design. The phrase "Pale Pilsen" appears immediately below in smaller block letters. To the left is a hop design and to the right, written in small prints, is the phrase "Net Contents 320 ml." Immediately below "Pale Pilsen" is the statement written in three lines "Especially brewed and bottled by" (first line), "Asia Brewery Incorporated" (second line), and "Philippines" (third line), (p. 177, Rollo; Emphasis supplied.) Does ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN label or "design" infringe upon SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN WITH RECTANGULAR MALT AND HOPS DESIGN? The answer is "No."

18

Infringement is determined by the "test of dominancy" rather than by differences or variations in the details of one trademark and of another. The rule was formulated in Co Tiong Sa vs. Director of Patents, 95 Phil. 1, 4 (1954); reiterated in Lim Hoa vs. Director of Patents, 100 Phil. 214, 216-217 (1956), thus: It has been consistently held that the question of infringement of a trademark is to be determined by the test of dominancy. Similarity in size, form and color, while relevant, is not conclusive. If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another, and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor it is necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. [C. Neilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent Brewing Co., 191 F., 489, 495, citing Eagle White Lead Co., vs. Pflugh (CC) 180 Fed. 579]. The question at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether the use of the marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistakes in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers. (Auburn Rubber Corporation vs. Honover Rubber Co., 107 F. 2d 588; . . . .) (Emphasis supplied.) In Forbes, Munn & Co. (Ltd.) vs. Ang San To, 40 Phil. 272, 275, the test was similarity or "resemblance between the two (trademarks) such as would be likely to cause the one mark to be mistaken for the other. . . . [But] this is not such similitude as amounts to identity." In Phil. Nut Industry Inc. vs. Standard Brands Inc., 65 SCRA 575, the court was more specific: the test is "similarity in the dominant features of the trademarks." What are the dominant features of the competing trademarks before us? There is hardly any dispute that the dominant feature of SMC's trademark is the name of the product: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, written in white Gothic letters with elaborate serifs at the beginning and end of the letters "S" and "M" on an amber background across the upper portion of the rectangular design.

The trial court perceptively observed that the word "BEER" does not appear in SMC's trademark, just as the words "SAN MIGUEL" do not appear in ABI's trademark. Hence, there is absolutely no similarity in the dominant features of both trademarks. Neither in sound, spelling or appearance can BEER PALE PILSEN be said to be confusingly similar to SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. No one who purchases BEER PALE PILSEN can possibly be deceived that it is SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. No evidence whatsoever was presented by SMC proving otherwise. Besides the dissimilarity in their names, the following other dissimilarities in the trade dress or appearance of the competing products abound: (1) neck.

The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle has a slender tapered

The BEER PALE PILSEN bottle has a fat, bulging neck. (2) The words "pale pilsen" on SMC's label are printed in bold and laced letters along a diagonal band, whereas the words "pale pilsen" on ABI's bottle are half the size and printed in slender block letters on a straight horizontal band. (See Exhibit "8-a".). (3) The names of the manufacturers are prominently printed on their respective bottles. SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN is "Bottled by the San Miguel Brewery, Philippines," whereas BEER PALE PILSEN is "Especially brewed and bottled by Asia Brewery Incorporated, Philippines." (4) On the back of ABI's bottle is printed in big, bold letters, under a row of flower buds and leaves, its copyrighted slogan: "BEER NA BEER!" Whereas SMC's bottle carries no slogan.

On the other hand, the dominant feature of ABI's trademark is the name: BEER PALE PILSEN, with the word "Beer" written in large amber letters, larger than any of the letters found in the SMC label.

(5) The back of the SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle carries the SMC logo, whereas the BEER PALE PILSEN bottle has no logo.

19

(6) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle cap is stamped with a coat of arms and the words "San Miguel Brewery Philippines" encircling the same. The BEER PALE PILSEN bottle cap is stamped with the name "BEER" in the center, surrounded by the words "Asia Brewery Incorporated Philippines." (7) Finally, there is a substantial price difference between BEER PALE PILSEN (currently at P4.25 per bottle) and SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN (currently at P7.00 per bottle). One who pays only P4.25 for a bottle of beer cannot expect to receive San Miguel Pale Pilsen from the storekeeper or bartender. The fact that the words pale pilsen are part of ABI's trademark does not constitute an infringement of SMC's trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, for "pale pilsen" are generic words descriptive of the color ("pale"), of a type of beer ("pilsen"), which is a light bohemian beer with a strong hops flavor that originated in the City of Pilsen in Czechoslovakia and became famous in the Middle Ages. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Edited by Philip Babcock Gove. Springfield, Mass.: G & C Merriam Co., [c] 1976, page 1716.) "Pilsen" is a "primarily geographically descriptive word," (Sec. 4, subpar. [e] Republic Act No. 166, as inserted by Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 638) hence, non-registerable and not appropriable by any beer manufacturer. The Trademark Law provides: Sec. 4. . . .. The owner of trade-mark, trade-name or service-mark used to distinguish his goods, business or services from the goods, business or services of others shall have the right to register the same [on the principal register], unless it: xxx

xxx

xxx

(e) Consists of a mark or trade-name which, when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, or when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, or is primarily merely a surname." (Emphasis supplied.)

The words "pale pilsen" may not be appropriated by SMC for its exclusive use even if they are part of its registered trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, any more than such descriptive words as "evaporated milk," "tomato ketchup," "cheddar cheese," "corn flakes" and "cooking oil" may be appropriated by any single manufacturer of these food products, for no other reason than that he was the first to use them in his registered trademark. In Masso Hermanos, S.A. vs. Director of Patents, 94 Phil. 136, 139 (1953), it was held that a dealer in shoes cannot register "Leather Shoes" as his trademark because that would be merely descriptive and it would be unjust to deprive other dealers in leather shoes of the right to use the same words with reference to their merchandise. No one may appropriate generic or descriptive words. They belong to the public domain (Ong Ai Gui vs. Director of Patents, 96 Phil. 673, 676 [1955]): A word or a combination of words which is merely descriptive of an article of trade, or of its composition, characteristics, or qualities, cannot be appropriated and protected as a trademark to the exclusion of its use by others. . . . inasmuch as all persons have an equal right to produce and vend similar articles, they also have the right to describe them properly and to use any appropriate language or words for that purpose, and no person can appropriate to himself exclusively any word or expression, properly descriptive of the article, its qualities, ingredients or characteristics, and thus limit other persons in the use of language appropriate to the description of their manufactures, the right to the use of such language being common to all. This rule excluding descriptive terms has also been held to apply to trade-names. As to whether words employed fall within this prohibition, it is said that the true test is not whether they are exhaustively descriptive of the article designated, but whether in themselves, and as they are commonly used by those who understand their meaning, they are reasonably indicative and descriptive of the thing intended. If they are thus descriptive, and not arbitrary, they cannot be appropriated from general use and become the exclusive property of anyone. (52 Am. Jur. 542-543.) . . . . Others may use the same or similar descriptive word in connection with their own wares, provided they take proper steps to prevent the public being deceived. (Richmond Remedies Co. vs. Dr. Miles Medical Co., 16 E. [2d] 598.) . . . . A descriptive word may be admittedly distinctive, especially if the user is the first creator of the article. It will, however, be denied protection, not because it lacks distinctiveness, but rather because others are equally

20

entitled to its use. (2 Callman. Unfair Competition and Trademarks, pp. 869870.)" (Emphasis supplied.) The circumstance that the manufacturer of BEER PALE PILSEN, Asia Brewery Incorporated, has printed its name all over the bottle of its beer product: on the label, on the back of the bottle, as well as on the bottle cap, disproves SMC's charge that ABI dishonestly and fraudulently intends to palm off its BEER PALE PILSEN as SMC's product. In view of the visible differences between the two products, the Court believes it is quite unlikely that a customer of average intelligence would mistake a bottle of BEER PALE PILSEN for SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. The fact that BEER PALE PILSEN like SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN is bottled in amber-colored steinie bottles of 320 ml. capacity and is also advertised in print, broadcast, and television media, does not necessarily constitute unfair competition. Unfair competition is the employment of deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which a person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services, for those of another who has already established goodwill for his similar goods, business or services, or any acts calculated to produce the same result. (Sec. 29, Republic Act No. 166, as amended.) The law further enumerates the more common ways of committing unfair competition, thus: Sec. 29. . . . In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition: (a) Any person, who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose.

(b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or (c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another. In this case, the question to be determined is whether ABI is using a name or mark for its beer that has previously come to designate SMC's beer, or whether ABI is passing off its BEER PALE PILSEN as SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. . . ..The universal test question is whether the public is likely to be deceived. Nothing less than conduct tending to pass off one man's goods or business as that of another will constitute unfair competition. Actual or probable deception and confusion on the part of the customers by reason of defendant's practices must always appear. (Shell Co., of the Philippines, Ltd. vs. Insular Petroleum Refining Co. Ltd. et al., 120 Phil. 434, 439.) The use of ABI of the steinie bottle, similar but not identical to the SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle, is not unlawful. As pointed out by ABI's counsel, SMC did not invent but merely borrowed the steinie bottle from abroad and it claims neither patent nor trademark protection for that bottle shape and design. (See rollo, page 55.) The Cerveza Especial and the Efes Pale Pilsen use the "steinie" bottle. (See Exhibits 57-D, 57-E.) The trial court found no infringement of SMC's bottle — The court agrees with defendant that there is no infringement of plaintiff's bottle, firstly, because according to plaintiff's witness Deogracias Villadolid, it is a standard type of bottle called steinie, and to witness Jose Antonio Garcia, it is not a San Miguel Corporation design but a design originally developed in the United States by the Glass Container Manufacturer's Institute and therefore lacks exclusivity. Secondly, the shape was never registered as a trademark. Exhibit "C" is not a registration of a beer bottle design required under Rep. Act 165 but the registration of the name and other marks of ownership stamped on containers as required by Rep. Act 623. Thirdly, the neck of defendant's bottle is much larger and has a distinct bulge in its uppermost part. (p. 186, Rollo.)

21

The petitioner's contention that bottle size, shape and color may not be the exclusive property of any one beer manufacturer is well taken. SMC's being the first to use the steinie bottle does not give SMC a vested right to use it to the exclusion of everyone else. Being of functional or common use, and not the exclusive invention of any one, it is available to all who might need to use it within the industry. Nobody can acquire any exclusive right to market articles supplying simple human needs in containers or wrappers of the general form, size and character commonly and immediately used in marketing such articles (Dy Buncio vs. Tan Tiao Bok, 42 Phil. 190, 194-195.) . . . protection against imitation should be properly confined to nonfunctional features. Even if purely functional elements are slavishly copied, the resemblance will not support an action for unfair competition, and the first user cannot claim secondary meaning protection. Nor can the first user predicate his claim to protection on the argument that his business was established in reliance on any such unpatented nonfunctional feature, even "at large expenditure of money." (Callman Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, Sec. 19.33 [4th Ed.].) (Petition for Review, p. 28.) ABI does not use SMC's steinie bottle. Neither did ABI copy it. ABI makes its own steinie bottle which has a fat bulging neck to differentiate it from SMC's bottle. The amber color is a functional feature of the beer bottle. As pointed out by ABI, all bottled beer produced in the Philippines is contained and sold in amber-colored bottles because amber is the most effective color in preventing transmission of light and provides the maximum protection to beer. As was ruled in California Crushed Fruit Corporation vs. Taylor B. and Candy Co., 38 F2d 885, a merchant cannot be enjoined from using a type or color of bottle where the same has the useful purpose of protecting the contents from the deleterious effects of light rays. Moreover, no one may have a monopoly of any color. Not only beer, but most medicines, whether in liquid or tablet form, are sold in amber-colored bottles. That the ABI bottle has a 320 ml. capacity is not due to a desire to imitate SMC's bottle because that bottle capacity is the standard prescribed under Metrication Circular No. 778, dated 4 December 1979, of the Department of Trade, Metric System Board. With regard to the white label of both beer bottles, ABI explained that it used the color white for its label because white presents the strongest contrast to the amber color of ABI's bottle; it is also the most economical to use on labels, and the easiest to "bake" in the furnace (p. 16, TSN of September 20,

1988). No one can have a monopoly of the color amber for bottles, nor of white for labels, nor of the rectangular shape which is the usual configuration of labels. Needless to say, the shape of the bottle and of the label is unimportant. What is all important is the name of the product written on the label of the bottle for that is how one beer may be distinguished form the others. In Dy Buncio v. Tan Tiao Bok, 42 Phil. 190, 196-197, where two competing tea products were both labelled as Formosan tea, both sold in 5-ounce packages made of ordinary wrapping paper of conventional color, both with labels containing designs drawn in green ink and Chinese characters written in red ink, one label showing a double-decked jar in the center, the other, a flower pot, this court found that the resemblances between the designs were not sufficient to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer, hence, there was no unfair competition. The Court held: . . . . In order that there may be deception of the buying public in the sense necessary to constitute unfair competition, it is necessary to suppose a public accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the goods in question. The test of fraudulent simulation is to be found in the likelihood of the deception of persons in some measure acquainted with an established design and desirous of purchasing the commodity with which that design has been associated. The test is not found in the deception, or possibility of the deception, of the person who knows nothing about the design which has been counterfeited, and who must be indifferent as between that and the other. The simulation, in order to be objectionable, must be such as appears likely to mislead the ordinarily intelligent buyer who has a need to supply and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase. The main thrust of SMC's complaint if not infringement of its trademark, but unfair competition arising form the allegedly "confusing similarity" in the general appearance or trade dress of ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN beside SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN (p. 209, Rollo) SMC claims that the "trade dress" of BEER PALE PILSEN is "confusingly similar" to its SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN because both are bottled in 320 ml. steinie type, amber-colored bottles with white rectangular labels. However, when as in this case, the names of the competing products are clearly different and their respective sources are prominently printed on the

22

label and on other parts of the bottle, mere similarity in the shape and size of the container and label, does not constitute unfair competition. The steinie bottle is a standard bottle for beer and is universally used. SMC did not invent it nor patent it. The fact that SMC's bottle is registered under R.A. No. 623 (as amended by RA 5700, An Act to Regulate the Use of Duly Stamped or Marked Bottles, Boxes, Casks, Kegs, Barrels and Other Similar Containers) simply prohibits manufacturers of other foodstuffs from the unauthorized use of SMC's bottles by refilling these with their products. It was not uncommon then for products such as patis (fish sauce) and toyo (soy sauce) to be sold in recycled SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottles. Registration of SMC's beer bottles did not give SMC a patent on the steinie or on bottles of similar size, shape or color. Most containers are standardized because they are usually made by the same manufacturer. Milk, whether in powdered or liquid form, is sold in uniform tin cans. The same can be said of the standard ketchup or vinegar bottle with its familiar elongated neck. Many other grocery items such as coffee, mayonnaise, pickles and peanut butter are sold in standard glass jars. The manufacturers of these foodstuffs have equal right to use these standards tins, bottles and jars for their products. Only their respective labels distinguish them from each other. Just as no milk producer may sue the others for unfair competition because they sell their milk in the same size and shape of milk can which he uses, neither may SMC claim unfair competition arising from the fact that ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN is sold, like SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN in amber steinie bottles. The record does not bear out SMC's apprehension that BEER PALE PILSEN is being passed off as SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. This is unlikely to happen for consumers or buyers of beer generally order their beer by brand. As pointed out by ABI's counsel, in supermarkets and tiendas, beer is ordered by brand, and the customer surrenders his empty replacement bottles or pays a deposit to guarantee the return of the empties. If his empties are SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, he will get SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN as replacement. In sari-sari stores, beer is also ordered from the tindera by brand. The same is true in restaurants, pubs and beer gardens — beer is ordered from the waiters by brand. (Op. cit. page 50.) Considering further that SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN has virtually monopolized the domestic beer market for the past hundred years, those who have been drinking no other beer but SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN these many years certainly know their beer too well to be deceived by a

newcomer in the market. If they gravitate to ABI's cheaper beer, it will not be because they are confused or deceived, but because they find the competing product to their taste. Our decision in this case will not diminish our ruling in "Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries," 181 SCRA 410, 419, 3 that: . . . to determine whether a trademark has been infringed, we must consider the mark as a whole and not as dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it is attributable to the marks as a totality, not usually to any part of it. That ruling may not apply to all kinds of products. The Court itself cautioned that in resolving cases of infringement and unfair competition, the courts should "take into consideration several factors which would affect its conclusion, to wit: the age, training and education of the usual purchaser, the nature and cost of the article, whether the article is bought for immediate consumption and also the conditions under which it is usually purchased" (181 SCRA 410, 418-419). The Del Monte case involved catsup, a common household item which is bought off the store shelves by housewives and house help who, if they are illiterate and cannot identify the product by name or brand, would very likely identify it by mere recollection of its appearance. Since the competitor, Sunshine Sauce Mfg. Industries, not only used recycled Del Monte bottles for its catsup (despite the warning embossed on the bottles: "Del Monte Corporation. Not to be refilled.") but also used labels which were "a colorable imitation" of Del Monte's label, we held that there was infringement of Del Monte's trademark and unfair competition by Sunshine. Our ruling in Del Monte would not apply to beer which is not usually picked from a store shelf but ordered by brand by the beer drinker himself from the storekeeper or waiter in a pub or restaurant. Moreover, SMC's brand or trademark: "SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN" is not infringed by ABI's mark: "BEER NA BEER" or "BEER PALE PILSEN." ABI makes its own bottle with a bulging neck to differentiate it from SMC's bottle, and prints ABI's name in three (3) places on said bottle (front, back and bottle cap) to prove that it has no intention to pass of its "BEER" as "SAN MIGUEL."

23

There is no confusing similarity between the competing beers for the name of one is "SAN MIGUEL" while the competitor is plain "BEER" and the points of dissimilarity between the two outnumber their points of similarity. Petitioner ABI has neither infringed SMC's trademark nor committed unfair competition with the latter's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN product. While its BEER PALE PILSEN admittedly competes with the latter in the open market, that competition is neither unfair nor fraudulent. Hence, we must deny SMC's prayer to suppress it. WHEREFORE, finding the petition for review meritorious, the same is hereby granted. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 28104 are hereby set aside and that of the trial court is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs against the private respondent. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo and Melo, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., took no part.

Separate Opinions

CRUZ, J., dissenting: The present ponencia stresses the specific similarities and differences of the two products to support the conclusion that there is no infringement of trade marks or unfair competition. That test was rejected in my own ponencia in Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 410, concurred in by Justices Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, where we declared:

While the Court does recognize these distinctions, it does not agree with the conclusion that there was no infringement or unfair competition. It seems to us that the lower courts have been so preoccupied with the details that they have not seen the total picture. It has been correctly held that side-by-side comparison is not the final test of similarity. Such comparison requires a careful scrutiny to determine in what points the labels of the products differ, as was done by the trial judge. The ordinary buyer does not usually make such scrutiny nor does he usually have the time to do so. The average shopper is usually in a hurry and does not inspect every product on the shelf as if he were browsing in a library. Where the housewife has to return home as soon as possible to her baby or the working woman has to make quick purchases during her off hours, she is apt to be confused by similar labels even if they do have minute differences. The male shopper is worse as he usually does not bother about such distinctions. The question is not whether the two articles are distinguishable by their labels when set aside by side but whether the general confusion made by the article upon the eye of the casual purchaser who is unsuspicious and off his guard, is such as to likely result in his confounding it with the original. As observed in several cases, the general impression of the ordinary purchaser, buying under the normally prevalent conditions in trade and giving the attention such purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods, is the touchstone. It has been held that in making purchases, the consumer must depend upon his recollection of the appearance of the product which he intends to purchase. The buyer having in mind the mark/label of the respondent must rely upon his memory of the petitioner's mark. Unlike the judge who has ample time to minutely examine the labels in question in the comfort of his sala, the ordinary shopper does not enjoy the same opportunity. A number of courts have held that to determine whether a trademark has been infringed, we must consider the mark as a whole and not as dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it is attributable to the marks as a totality, not usually to any part of it. The court therefore should be guided by its first impression, for a buyer acts quickly and is governed by a casual glance, the value of which may be dissipated as soon as the court assumes to analyze carefully the respective features of the mark.

24

It has also been held that it is not the function of the court in cases of infringement and unfair competition to educate purchasers but rather to take their carelessness for granted, and to be ever conscious of the fact that marks need not be identical. A confusing similarity will justify the intervention of equity. The judge must also be aware of the fact that usually a defendant in cases of infringement does not normally copy but makes only colorable changes. Well has it been said that the most successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public with enough points of difference to confuse the courts. For the above reasons, and the other arguments stated in Del Monte, I dissent.

# Separate Opinions CRUZ, J., dissenting: The present ponencia stresses the specific similarities and differences of the two products to support the conclusion that there is no infringement of trade marks or unfair competition. That test was rejected in my own ponencia in Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 410, concurred in by Justices Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, where we declared: While the Court does recognize these distinctions, it does not agree with the conclusion that there was no infringement or unfair competition. It seems to us that the lower courts have been so preoccupied with the details that they have not seen the total picture. It has been correctly held that side-by-side comparison is not the final test of similarity. Such comparison requires a careful scrutiny to determine in what points the labels of the products differ, as was done by the trial judge. The ordinary buyer does not usually make such scrutiny nor does he usually have the time to do so. The average shopper is usually in a hurry and does not inspect every product on the shelf as if he were browsing in a library. Where the housewife has to return home as soon as possible to her baby or the working woman has to make quick purchases during her off hours, she is apt to be confused by similar labels even if they do have minute differences.

The male shopper is worse as he usually does not bother about such distinctions. The question is not whether the two articles are distinguishable by their labels when set aside by side but whether the general confusion made by the article upon the eye of the casual purchaser who is unsuspicious and off his guard, is such as to likely result in his confounding it with the original. As observed in several cases, the general impression of the ordinary purchaser, buying under the normally prevalent conditions in trade and giving the attention such purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods, is the touchstone. It has been held that in making purchases, the consumer must depend upon his recollection of the appearance of the product which he intends to purchase. The buyer having in mind the mark/label of the respondent must rely upon his memory of the petitioner's mark. Unlike the judge who has ample time to minutely examine the labels in question in the comfort of his sala, the ordinary shopper does not enjoy the same opportunity. A number of courts have held that to determine whether a trademark has been infringed, we must consider the mark as a whole and not as dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it is attributable to the marks as a totality, not usually to any part of it. The court therefore should be guided by its first impression, for a buyer acts quickly and is governed by a casual glance, the value of which may be dissipated as soon as the court assumes to analyze carefully the respective features of the mark. It has also been held that it is not the function of the court in cases of infringement and unfair competition to educate purchasers but rather to take their carelessness for granted, and to be ever conscious of the fact that marks need not be identical. A confusing similarity will justify the intervention of equity. The judge must also be aware of the fact that usually a defendant in cases of infringement does not normally copy but makes only colorable changes. Well has it been said that the most successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public with enough points of difference to confuse the courts. For the above reasons, and the other arguments stated in Del Monte, I dissent. G.R. No. 101897. March 5, 1993.

25

LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LYCEUM OF APARRI, LYCEUM OF CABAGAN, LYCEUM OF CAMALANIUGAN, INC., LYCEUM OF LALLO, INC., LYCEUM OF TUAO, INC., BUHI LYCEUM, CENTRAL LYCEUM OF CATANDUANES, LYCEUM OF SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES, LYCEUM OF EASTERN MINDANAO, INC. and WESTERN PANGASINAN LYCEUM, INC., respondents.

respondent entities all carry the word "Lyceum" but confusion and deception are effectively precluded by the appending of geographic names to the word "Lyceum." Thus, we do not believe that the "Lyceum of Aparri" can be mistaken by the general public for the Lyceum of the Philippines, or that the "Lyceum of Camalaniugan" would be confused with the Lyceum of the Philippines.

Quisumbing, Torres & Evangelista Law Offices and Ambrosio Padilla for petitioner.

2. ID.; ID.; DOCTRINE OF SECONDARY MEANING; USE OF WORD "LYCEUM," NOT ATTENDED WITH EXCLUSIVITY. — It is claimed, however, by petitioner that the word "Lyceum" has acquired a secondary meaning in relation to petitioner with the result that word, although originally a generic, has become appropriable by petitioner to the exclusion of other institutions like private respondents herein. The doctrine of secondary meaning originated in the field of trademark law. Its application has, however, been extended to corporate names sine the right to use a corporate name to the exclusion of others is based upon the same principle which underlies the right to use a particular trademark or tradename. In Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. v. Standard Brands, Inc., the doctrine of secondary meaning was elaborated in the following terms: " . . . a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article on the market, because geographically or otherwise descriptive, might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to his article that, in that trade and to that branch of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product." The question which arises, therefore, is whether or not the use by petitioner of "Lyceum" in its corporate name has been for such length of time and with such exclusivity as to have become associated or identified with the petitioner institution in the mind of the general public (or at least that portion of the general public which has to do with schools). The Court of Appeals recognized this issue and answered it in the negative: "Under the doctrine of secondary meaning, a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market, because geographical or otherwise descriptive might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to this article that, in that trade and to that group of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his produce (Ana Ang vs. Toribio Teodoro, 74 Phil. 56). This circumstance has been referred to as the distinctiveness into which the name or phrase has evolved through the substantial and exclusive use of the same for a considerable period of time. . . . No evidence was ever presented in the hearing before the Commission which sufficiently proved that the word 'Lyceum' has indeed acquired secondary meaning in

Antonio M. Nuyles and Purungan, Chato, Chato, Tarriela & Tan Law Offices for respondents. Froilan Siobal for Western Pangasinan Lyceum. SYLLABUS 1. CORPORATION LAW; CORPORATE NAMES; REGISTRATION OF PROPOSED NAME WHICH IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF ANY EXISTING CORPORATION, PROHIBITED; CONFUSION AND DECEPTION EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED BY THE APPENDING OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES TO THE WORD "LYCEUM". — The Articles of Incorporation of a corporation must, among other things, set out the name of the corporation. Section 18 of the Corporation Code establishes a restrictive rule insofar as corporate names are concerned: "Section 18. Corporate name. — No corporate name may be allowed by the Securities an Exchange Commission if the proposed name is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other name already protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. When a change in the corporate name is approved, the Commission shall issue an amended certificate of incorporation under the amended name." The policy underlying the prohibition in Section 18 against the registration of a corporate name which is "identical or deceptively or confusingly similar" to that of any existing corporation or which is "patently deceptive" or "patently confusing" or "contrary to existing laws," is the avoidance of fraud upon the public which would have occasion to deal with the entity concerned, the evasion of legal obligations and duties, and the reduction of difficulties of administration and supervision over corporations. We do not consider that the corporate names of private respondent institutions are "identical with, or deceptively or confusingly similar" to that of the petitioner institution. True enough, the corporate names of private

26

favor of the appellant. If there was any of this kind, the same tend to prove only that the appellant had been using the disputed word for a long period of time. . . . In other words, while the appellant may have proved that it had been using the word 'Lyceum' for a long period of time, this fact alone did not amount to mean that the said word had acquired secondary meaning in its favor because the appellant failed to prove that it had been using the same word all by itself to the exclusion of others. More so, there was no evidence presented to prove that confusion will surely arise if the same word were to be used by other educational institutions. Consequently, the allegations of the appellant in its first two assigned errors must necessarily fail." We agree with the Court of Appeals. The number alone of the private respondents in the case at bar suggests strongly that petitioner's use of the word "Lyceum" has not been attended with the exclusivity essential for applicability of the doctrine of secondary meaning. Petitioner's use of the word "Lyceum" was not exclusive but was in truth shared with the Western Pangasinan Lyceum and a little later with other private respondent institutions which registered with the SEC using "Lyceum" as part of their corporation names. There may well be other schools using Lyceum or Liceo in their names, but not registered with the SEC because they have not adopted the corporate form of organization.

September 1950, it used the corporate name Lyceum of the Philippines, Inc. and has used that name ever since. On 24 February 1984, petitioner instituted proceedings before the SEC to compel the private respondents, which are also educational institutions, to delete the word "Lyceum" from their corporate names and permanently to enjoin them from using "Lyceum" as part of their respective names. Some of the private respondents actively participated in the proceedings before the SEC. These are the following, the dates of their original SEC registration being set out below opposite their respective names: Western Pangasinan Lyceum — 27 October 1950 Lyceum of Cabagan — 31 October 1962 Lyceum of Lallo, Inc. — 26 March 1972 Lyceum of Aparri — 28 March 1972 Lyceum of Tuao, Inc. — 28 March 1972

3. ID.; ID.; MUST BE EVALUATED IN THEIR ENTIRETY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE CONFUSINGLY OR DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO ANOTHER CORPORATE ENTITY'S NAME. — petitioner institution is not entitled to a legally enforceable exclusive right to use the word "Lyceum" in its corporate name and that other institutions may use "Lyceum" as part of their corporate names. To determine whether a given corporate name is "identical" or "confusingly or deceptively similar" with another entity's corporate name, it is not enough to ascertain the presence of "Lyceum" or "Liceo" in both names. One must evaluate corporate names in their entirety and when the name of petitioner is juxtaposed with the names of private respondents, they are not reasonably regarded as "identical" or "confusingly or deceptively similar" with each other.

Lyceum of Camalaniugan — 28 March 1972 The following private respondents were declared in default for failure to file an answer despite service of summons: Buhi Lyceum; Central Lyceum of Catanduanes; Lyceum of Eastern Mindanao, Inc.; and Lyceum of Southern Philippines

DECISION FELICIANO, J p: Petitioner is an educational institution duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). When it first registered with the SEC on 21

Petitioner's original complaint before the SEC had included three (3) other entities: 1.

The Lyceum of Malacanay;

2.

The Lyceum of Marbel; and

27

3.

The Lyceum of Araullo

The complaint was later withdrawn insofar as concerned the Lyceum of Malacanay and the Lyceum of Marbel, for failure to serve summons upon these two (2) entities. The case against the Liceum of Araullo was dismissed when that school motu proprio change its corporate name to "Pamantasan ng Araullo." The background of the case at bar needs some recounting. Petitioner had sometime before commenced in the SEC a proceeding (SEC-Case No. 1241) against the Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. to require it to change its corporate name and to adopt another name not "similar [to] or identical" with that of petitioner. In an Order dated 20 April 1977, Associate Commissioner Julio Sulit held that the corporate name of petitioner and that of the Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. were substantially identical because of the presence of a "dominant" word, i.e., "Lyceum," the name of the geographical location of the campus being the only word which distinguished one from the other corporate name. The SEC also noted that petitioner had registered as a corporation ahead of the Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. in point of time, 1 and ordered the latter to change its name to another name "not similar or identical [with]" the names of previously registered entities. The Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. assailed the Order of the SEC before the Supreme Court in a case docketed as G.R. No. L-46595. In a Minute Resolution dated 14 September 1977, the Court denied the Petition for Review for lack of merit. Entry of judgment in that case was made on 21 October 1977. 2 Armed with the Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. L-46595, petitioner then wrote all the educational institutions it could find using the word "Lyceum" as part of their corporate name, and advised them to discontinue such use of "Lyceum." When, with the passage of time, it became clear that this recourse had failed, petitioner instituted before the SEC SEC-Case No. 2579 to enforce what petitioner claims as its proprietary right to the word "Lyceum." The SEC hearing officer rendered a decision sustaining petitioner's claim to an exclusive right to use the word "Lyceum." The hearing officer relied upon the SEC ruling in the Lyceum of Baguio, Inc. case (SEC-Case No. 1241) and held that the word "Lyceum" was capable of appropriation and that petitioner had acquired an enforceable exclusive right to the use of that word.

On appeal, however, by private respondents to the SEC En Banc, the decision of the hearing officer was reversed and set aside. The SEC En Banc did not consider the word "Lyceum" to have become so identified with petitioner as to render use thereof by other institutions as productive of confusion about the identity of the schools concerned in the mind of the general public. Unlike its hearing officer, the SEC En Banc held that the attaching of geographical names to the word "Lyceum" served sufficiently to distinguish the schools from one another, especially in view of the fact that the campuses of petitioner and those of the private respondents were physically quite remote from each other. 3 Petitioner then went on appeal to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated 28 June 1991, however, the Court of Appeals affirmed the questioned Orders of the SEC En Banc. 4 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, without success. Before this Court, petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals committed the following errors: 1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Resolution of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-46595 did not constitute stare decisis as to apply to this case and in not holding that said Resolution bound subsequent determinations on the right to exclusive use of the word Lyceum. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent Western Pangasinan Lyceum, Inc. was incorporated earlier than petitioner. 3. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the word Lyceum has not acquired a secondary meaning in favor of petitioner. 4. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Lyceum as a generic word cannot be appropriated by the petitioner to the exclusion of others. 5 We will consider all the foregoing ascribed errors, though not necessarily seriatim. We begin by noting that the Resolution of the Court in G.R. No. L46595 does not, of course, constitute res adjudicata in respect of the case at bar, since there is no identity of parties. Neither is stare decisis pertinent, if only because the SEC En Banc itself has re-examined Associate Commissioner Sulit's ruling in the Lyceum of Baguio case. The Minute Resolution of the Court in G.R. No. L-46595 was not a reasoned adoption of the Sulit ruling.

28

The Articles of Incorporation of a corporation must, among other things, set out the name of the corporation. 6 Section 18 of the Corporation Code establishes a restrictive rule insofar as corporate names are concerned: "SECTION 18. Corporate name. — No corporate name may be allowed by the Securities an Exchange Commission if the proposed name is identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of any existing corporation or to any other name already protected by law or is patently deceptive, confusing or contrary to existing laws. When a change in the corporate name is approved, the Commission shall issue an amended certificate of incorporation under the amended name." (Emphasis supplied) The policy underlying the prohibition in Section 18 against the registration of a corporate name which is "identical or deceptively or confusingly similar" to that of any existing corporation or which is "patently deceptive" or "patently confusing" or "contrary to existing laws," is the avoidance of fraud upon the public which would have occasion to deal with the entity concerned, the evasion of legal obligations and duties, and the reduction of difficulties of administration and supervision over corporations. 7 We do not consider that the corporate names of private respondent institutions are "identical with, or deceptively or confusingly similar" to that of the petitioner institution. True enough, the corporate names of private respondent entities all carry the word "Lyceum" but confusion and deception are effectively precluded by the appending of geographic names to the word "Lyceum." Thus, we do not believe that the "Lyceum of Aparri" can be mistaken by the general public for the Lyceum of the Philippines, or that the "Lyceum of Camalaniugan" would be confused with the Lyceum of the Philippines. Etymologically, the word "Lyceum" is the Latin word for the Greek lykeion which in turn referred to a locality on the river Ilissius in ancient Athens "comprising an enclosure dedicated to Apollo and adorned with fountains and buildings erected by Pisistratus, Pericles and Lycurgus frequented by the youth for exercise and by the philosopher Aristotle and his followers for teaching." 8 In time, the word "Lyceum" became associated with schools and other institutions providing public lectures and concerts and public discussions. Thus today, the word "Lyceum" generally refers to a school or an institution of learning. While the Latin word "lyceum" has been incorporated into the English language, the word is also found in Spanish

(liceo) and in French (lycee). As the Court of Appeals noted in its Decision, Roman Catholic schools frequently use the term; e.g., "Liceo de Manila," "Liceo de Baleno" (in Baleno, Masbate), "Liceo de Masbate," "Liceo de Albay." 9 "Lyceum" is in fact as generic in character as the word "university." In the name of the petitioner, "Lyceum" appears to be a substitute for "university;" in other places, however, "Lyceum," or "Liceo" or "Lycee" frequently denotes a secondary school or a college. It may be (though this is a question of fact which we need not resolve) that the use of the word "Lyceum" may not yet be as widespread as the use of "university," but it is clear that a not inconsiderable number of educational institutions have adopted "Lyceum" or "Liceo" as part of their corporate names. Since "Lyceum" or "Liceo" denotes a school or institution of learning, it is not unnatural to use this word to designate an entity which is organized and operating as an educational institution. It is claimed, however, by petitioner that the word "Lyceum" has acquired a secondary meaning in relation to petitioner with the result that that word, although originally a generic, has become appropriable by petitioner to the exclusion of other institutions like private respondents herein. The doctrine of secondary meaning originated in the field of trademark law. Its application has, however, been extended to corporate names sine the right to use a corporate name to the exclusion of others is based upon the same principle which underlies the right to use a particular trademark or tradename. 10 In Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. v. Standard Brands, Inc., 11 the doctrine of secondary meaning was elaborated in the following terms: " . . . a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article on the market, because geographically or otherwise descriptive, might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to his article that, in that trade and to that branch of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product." 12 The question which arises, therefore, is whether or not the use by petitioner of "Lyceum" in its corporate name has been for such length of time and with such exclusivity as to have become associated or identified with the petitioner institution in the mind of the general public (or at least that portion of the general public which has to do with schools). The Court of Appeals recognized this issue and answered it in the negative:

29

"Under the doctrine of secondary meaning, a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article in the market, because geographical or otherwise descriptive might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to this article that, in that trade and to that group of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his produce (Ana Ang vs. Toribio Teodoro, 74 Phil. 56). This circumstance has been referred to as the distinctiveness into which the name or phrase has evolved through the substantial and exclusive use of the same for a considerable period of time. Consequently, the same doctrine or principle cannot be made to apply where the evidence did not prove that the business (of the plaintiff) has continued for so long a time that it has become of consequence and acquired a good will of considerable value such that its articles and produce have acquired a well-known reputation, and confusion will result by the use of the disputed name (by the defendant) (Ang Si Heng vs. Wellington Department Store, Inc., 92 Phil. 448). With the foregoing as a yardstick, [we] believe the appellant failed to satisfy the aforementioned requisites. No evidence was ever presented in the hearing before the Commission which sufficiently proved that the word 'Lyceum' has indeed acquired secondary meaning in favor of the appellant. If there was any of this kind, the same tend to prove only that the appellant had been using the disputed word for a long period of time. Nevertheless, its (appellant) exclusive use of the word (Lyceum) was never established or proven as in fact the evidence tend to convey that the cross-claimant was already using the word 'Lyceum' seventeen (17) years prior to the date the appellant started using the same word in its corporate name. Furthermore, educational institutions of the Roman Catholic Church had been using the same or similar word like 'Liceo de Manila,' 'Liceo de Baleno' (in Baleno, Masbate), 'Liceo de Masbate,' 'Liceo de Albay' long before appellant started using the word 'Lyceum'. The appellant also failed to prove that the word 'Lyceum' has become so identified with its educational institution that confusion will surely arise in the minds of the public if the same word were to be used by other educational institutions. In other words, while the appellant may have proved that it had been using the word 'Lyceum' for a long period of time, this fact alone did not amount to mean that the said word had acquired secondary meaning in its favor because the appellant failed to prove that it had been using the same word all by itself to the exclusion of others. More so, there was no evidence presented to prove that confusion will surely arise if the same word were to

be used by other educational institutions. Consequently, the allegations of the appellant in its first two assigned errors must necessarily fail." 13 (Underscoring partly in the original and partly supplied) We agree with the Court of Appeals. The number alone of the private respondents in the case at bar suggests strongly that petitioner's use of the word "Lyceum" has not been attended with the exclusivity essential for applicability of the doctrine of secondary meaning. It may be noted also that at least one of the private respondents, i.e., the Western Pangasinan Lyceum, Inc., used the term "Lyceum" seventeen (17) years before the petitioner registered its own corporate name with the SEC and began using the word "Lyceum." It follows that if any institution had acquired an exclusive right to the word "Lyceum," that institution would have been the Western Pangasinan Lyceum, Inc. rather than the petitioner institution. In this connection, petitioner argues that because the Western Pangasinan Lyceum, Inc. failed to reconstruct its records before the SEC in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 62, which records had been destroyed during World War II, Western Pangasinan Lyceum should be deemed to have lost all rights it may have acquired by virtue of its past registration. It might be noted that the Western Pangasinan Lyceum, Inc. registered with the SEC soon after petitioner had filed its own registration on 21 September 1950. Whether or not Western Pangasinan Lyceum, Inc. must be deemed to have lost its rights under its original 1933 registration, appears to us to be quite secondary in importance; we refer to this earlier registration simply to underscore the fact that petitioner's use of the word "Lyceum" was neither the first use of that term in the Philippines nor an exclusive use thereof. Petitioner's use of the word "Lyceum" was not exclusive but was in truth shared with the Western Pangasinan Lyceum and a little later with other private respondent institutions which registered with the SEC using "Lyceum" as part of their corporation names. There may well be other schools using Lyceum or Liceo in their names, but not registered with the SEC because they have not adopted the corporate form of organization. We conclude and so hold that petitioner institution is not entitled to a legally enforceable exclusive right to use the word "Lyceum" in its corporate name and that other institutions may use "Lyceum" as part of their corporate names. To determine whether a given corporate name is "identical" or "confusingly or deceptively similar" with another entity's corporate name, it is not enough to ascertain the presence of "Lyceum" or "Liceo" in both names. One must evaluate corporate names in their entirety and when the name of

30

petitioner is juxtaposed with the names of private respondents, they are not reasonably regarded as "identical" or "confusingly or deceptively similar" with each other. WHEREFORE, the petitioner having failed to show any reversible error on the part of the public respondent Court of Appeals, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 June 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-48226

December 14, 1942

ANA L. ANG, petitioner, vs. TORIBIO TEODORO, respondent. Cirilo Lim for petitioner. Marcial P. Lichauco and Manuel M. Mejia for respondent. OZAETA, J.: Petitioner has appealed to this Court by certiorari to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing that of the Court of First Instance of Manila and directing the Director of Commerce to cancel the registration of the trade-mark "Ang Tibay" in favor of said petitioner, and perpetually enjoining the latter from using said trade-mark on goods manufactured and sold by her. Respondent Toribio Teodoro, at first in partnership with Juan Katindig and later as sole proprietor, has continuously used "Ang Tibay," both as a trademark and as a trade-name, in the manufacture and sale of slippers, shoes, and indoor baseballs since 1910. He formally registered it as trade-mark on September 29, 1915, and as trade-name on January 3, 1933. The growth of his business is a thrilling epic of Filipino industry and business capacity. Starting in an obscure shop in 1910 with a modest capital of P210 but with tireless industry and unlimited perseverance, Toribio Teodoro, then an unknown young man making slippers with his own hands but now a prominent business magnate and manufacturer with a large factory operated with modern machinery by a great number of employees, has steadily grown with his business to which he has dedicated the best years of his life and

which he has expanded to such proportions that his gross sales from 1918 to 1938 aggregated P8,787,025.65. His sales in 1937 amounted to P1,299,343.10 and in 1938, P1,133,165.77. His expenses for advertisement from 1919 to 1938 aggregated P210,641.56. Petitioner (defendant below) 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. In the following year (1938) her gross sales amounted to P422,682.09. Neither the decision of the trial court nor that of the Court of Appeals shows how much petitioner has spent or advertisement. But respondent in his brief says that petitioner "was unable to prove that she had spent a single centavo advertising "Ang Tibay" shirts and pants prior to 1938. In that year she advertised the factory which she had just built and it was when this was brought to the attention of the appellee that he consulted his attorneys and eventually brought the present suit." The trial court (Judge Quirico Abeto) presiding absolved the defendant from the complaint, with costs against the plaintiff, 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 second division of the Court of Appeals, composed of Justices Bengson, Padilla, Lopez Vito, Tuason, and Alex Reyes, with Justice Padilla as ponente, reversed that judgment, holding that by uninterrupted an exclusive use since 191 in the manufacture of slippers and shoes, respondent's trade-mark has acquired a secondary meaning; that the goods or articles on which the two trade-marks are used are similar or belong to the same class; and that the use by petitioner of said trade-mark constitutes a violation of sections 3 and 7 of Act No. 666. The defendant Director of Commerce did not appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals. First. Counsel for the petitioner, in a well-written brief, makes a frontal sledge-hammer attack on the validity of respondent's trade-mark "Ang Tibay." He contends that the phrase "Ang Tibay" as employed by the respondent on the articles manufactured by him is a descriptive term because, "freely translate in English," it means "strong, durable, lasting." He invokes section 2 of Act No. 666, which provides that words or devices which related only to the name, quality, or description of the merchandise cannot be the subject of a trade-mark. He cites among others the case of Baxter vs.

31

Zuazua (5 Phil., 16), which involved the trade-mark "Agua de Kananga" used on toilet water, and in which this Court held that the word "Kananga," which is the name of a well-known Philippine tree or its flower, could not be appropriated as a trade-mark any more than could the words "sugar," "tobacco," or "coffee." On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, in an equally well-prepared and exhaustive brief, contend that the words "Ang Tibay" are not descriptive but merely suggestive and may properly be regarded as fanciful or arbitrary in the legal sense. The cite several cases in which similar words have been sustained as valid trade-marks, such as "Holeproof" for hosiery, 1 "ideal for tooth brushes, 2 and "Fashionknit" for neckties and sweaters. 3 We find it necessary to go into the etymology and meaning of the Tagalog words "Ang Tibay" to determine whether they are a descriptive term, i.e., whether they relate to the quality or description of the merchandise to which respondent has applied them as a trade-mark. The word "ang" is a definite article meaning "the" in English. It is also used as an adverb, a contraction of the word "anong" (what or how). For instance, instead of saying, "Anong ganda!" ("How beautiful!"), we ordinarily say, "Ang ganda!" Tibay is a root word from which are derived the verb magpatibay (to strenghten; the nouns pagkamatibay (strength, durability), katibayan (proof, support, strength), katibay-tibayan (superior strength); and the adjectives matibay (strong, durable, lasting), napakatibay (very strong), kasintibay or magkasintibay (as strong as, or of equal strength). The phrase "Ang Tibay" is an exclamation denoting administration of strength or durability. For instance, one who tries hard but fails to break an object exclaims, "Ang tibay!" (How strong!") It may also be used in a sentence thus, "Ang tibay ng sapatos mo!" (How durable your shoes are!") The phrase "ang tibay" is never used adjectively to define or describe an object. One does not say, "ang tibay sapatos" or "sapatos ang tibay" is never used adjectively to define or describe an object. One does not say, "ang tibay sapatos" or "sapatos ang tibay" to mean "durable shoes," but "matibay na sapatos" or "sapatos na matibay." From all of this we deduce that "Ang Tibay" is not a descriptive term within the meaning of the Trade-Mark Law but rather a fanciful or coined phrase which may properly and legally be appropriated as a trade-mark or tradename. In this connection we do not fail to note that when the petitioner herself took the trouble and expense of securing the registration of these same words as a trademark of her products she or her attorney as well as the Director of Commerce was undoubtedly convinced that said words (Ang Tibay) were not a descriptive term and hence could be legally used and

validly registered as a trade-mark. It seems stultifying and puerile for her now to contend otherwise, suggestive of the story of sour grapes. Counsel for the petitioner says that the function of a trade-mark is to point distinctively, either by its own meaning or by association, to the origin or ownership of the wares to which it is applied. That is correct, and we find that "Ang Tibay," as used by the respondent to designate his wares, had exactly performed that function for twenty-two years before the petitioner adopted it as a trade-mark in her own business. Ang Tibay shoes and slippers are, by association, known throughout the Philippines as products of the Ang Tibay factory owned and operated by the respondent Toribio Teodoro. Second. In her second assignment of error petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the words "Ang Tibay" had acquired a secondary meaning. In view of the conclusion we have reached upon the first assignment of error, it is unnecessary to apply here the doctrine of "secondary meaning" in trade-mark parlance. This doctrine is to the effect that a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article of the market, because geographically or otherwise descriptive, might nevertheless have been used so long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to his article that, in that trade and to that branch of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product. (G. & C. Merriam Co. vs. Salfield, 198 F., 369, 373.) We have said that the phrase "Ang Tibay," being neither geographic nor descriptive, was originally capable of exclusive appropriation as a trademark. But were it not so, the application of the doctrine of secondary meaning made by the Court of Appeals could nevertheless be fully sustained because, in any event, by respondent's long and exclusive use of said phrase with reference to his products and his business, it has acquired a proprietary connotation. (Landers, Frary, and Clark vs. Universal Cooler Corporation, 85 F. [2d], 46.) Third. Petitioner's third assignment of error is, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that pants and shirts are goods similar to shoes and slippers within the meaning of sections 3 and 7 of Act No. 666. She also contends under her fourth assignment of error (which we deem convenient to pass upon together with the third) that there can neither be infringement of trademark under section 3 nor unfair competition under section 7 through her use of the words "Ang Tibay" in connection with pants and shirts, because those articles do not belong to the same class of merchandise as shoes and slippers.

32

The question raised by petitioner involve the scope and application of sections 3,7, 11, 13, and 20 of the Trade-Mark Law (Act No. 666.) Section 3 provides that "any person entitled to the exclusive use of a trade-mark to designate the origin or ownership of goods he has made or deals in, may recover damages in a civil actions from any person who has sold goods of a similar kind, bearing such trade-mark . . . The complaining party . . . may have a preliminary injunction, . . . and such injunction upon final hearing, if the complainant's property in the trade-mark and the defendant's violation thereof shall be fully established, shall be made perpetual, and this injunction shall be part of the judgment for damages to be rendered in the same cause." Section 7 provides that any person who, in selling his goods, shall give them the general appearance of the goods of another either in the wrapping of the packages, or in the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of the complainant, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be liable to an action for damages and to an injunction, as in the cases of trade-mark infringement under section 3. Section 11 requires the applicant for registration of a trade-mark to state, among others, "the general class of merchandise to which the trade-mark claimed has been appropriated." Section 13 provides that no alleged trademark or trade name shall be registered which is identical with a registered or known trade-mark owned by another and appropriate to the same class of merchandise, or which to nearly resembles another person's lawful trademark or trade-name as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public, or to deceive purchasers. And section 2 authorizes the Director of Commerce to establish classes of merchandise for the purpose of the registration of trade-marks and to determine the particular description of articles included in each class; it also provides that "an application for registration of a trade-mark shall be registered only for one class of articles and only for the particular description of articles mentioned in said application." We have underlined the key words used in the statute: "goods of a similar kin," "general class of merchandise," "same class of merchandise," "classes of merchandise," and "class of articles," because it is upon their implications that the result of the case hinges. These phrases, which refer to the same thing, have the same meaning as the phrase "merchandise of the same descriptive properties" used in the statutes and jurisprudence of other jurisdictions.

The burden of petitioner's argument is that under sections 11 and 20 the registration by respondent of the trade-mark "Ang Tibay" for shoes and slippers is no safe-guard against its being used by petitioner for pants and shirts because the latter do not belong to the same class of merchandise or articles as the former; that she cannot be held guilty of infringement of trademark under section 3 because respondent's mark is not a valid trade-mark, nor has it acquired a secondary meaning; that pants and shirts do not possess the same descriptive properties as shoes and slippers; that neither can she be held guilty of unfair competition under section 7 because the use by her of the trade-mark "Ang Tibay" upon pants and shirts is not likely to mislead the general public as to their origin or ownership; and that there is now showing that she in unfairly or fraudulently using that mark "Ang Tibay" against the respondent. If we were interpreting the statute for the first time and in the first decade of the twentieth century, when it was enacted, and were to construe it strictly and literally, we might uphold petitioner's contentions. But law and jurisprudence must keep abreast with the progress of mankind, and the courts must breathe life into the statutes if they are to serve their purpose. Our Trade-mark Law, enacted nearly forty years ago, has grown in its implications and practical application, like a constitution, in virtue of the life continually breathed into it. It is not of merely local application; it has its counterpart in other jurisdictions of the civilized world from whose jurisprudence it has also received vitalizing nourishment. We have to apply this law as it has grown and not as it was born. Its growth or development abreast with that of sister statutes and jurisprudence in other jurisdictions is reflected in the following observation of a well-known author: This fundamental change in attitude first manifested itself in the year 19151917. Until about then, the courts had proceeded on the theory that the same trade-mark, used on un-like goods, could not cause confusion in trade and that, therefore, there could be no objection to the use and registration of a well-known mark by a third party for a different class of goods. Since 1916 however, a growing sentiment began to arise that in the selection of a famous mark by a third party, there was generally the hidden intention to "have a free ride" on the trade-mark owner's reputation and good will. (Derenberg, Trade-Mark Protection & Unfair Trading, 1936 edition, p. 409.) In the present state of development of the law on Trade-Marks, Unfair Competition, and Unfair Trading, the test employed by the courts to determine whether noncompeting goods are or are not of the same class is confusion as to the origin of the goods of the second user. Although two noncompeting articles may be classified under two different classes by the

33

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 trade-marks 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 the first user made the second user's goods. Such construction of the law is induced by cogent reasons of equity and fair dealing. The courts have come to realize that there can be unfair competition or unfair trading even if the goods are non-competing, and that such unfair trading can cause injury or damage to the first user of a given trade-mark, first, by prevention of the natural expansion of his business and, second, by having his business reputation confused with and put at the mercy of the second user. Then noncompetitive products are sold under the same mark, the gradual whittling away or dispersion of the identity and hold upon the public mind of the mark created by its first user, inevitably results. The original owner is entitled to the preservation of the valuable link between him and the public that has been created by his ingenuity and the merit of his wares or services. Experience has demonstrated that when a well-known trade-mark is adopted by another even for a totally different class of goods, it is done to get the benefit of the reputation and advertisements of the originator of said mark, to convey to the public a false impression of some supposed connection between the manufacturer of the article sold under the original mark and the new articles being tendered to the public under the same or similar mark. As trade has developed and commercial changes have come about, the law of unfair competition has expanded to keep pace with the times and the element of strict competition in itself has ceased to be the determining factor. The owner of a trade-mark or trade-name has a property right in which he is entitled to protection, since there is damage to him from confusion of reputation or goodwill in the mind of the public as well as from confusion of goods. The modern trend is to give emphasis to the unfairness of the acts and to classify and treat the issue as a fraud. A few of the numerous cases in which the foregoing doctrines have been laid down in one form or another will now be cited: (1) In Teodoro Kalaw Ng Khe vs. Level Brothers Company (G.R. No. 46817), decided by this Court on April 18, 1941, the respondent company (plaintiff below) was granted injunctive relief against the use by the petitioner of the trade-mark "Lux" and "Lifebuoy" for hair pomade, they having been originally used by the respondent for

soap; The Court held in effect that although said articles are noncompetitive, they are similar or belong to the same class. (2) In Lincoln Motor Co. vs. Lincoln Automobile Co. (44 F. [2d], 812), the manufacturer of the well-known Lincoln automobile was granted injunctive relief against the use of the word "Lincoln" by another company as part of its firm name. (3) The case of Aunt Jemima Mills Co. vs. Rigney & Co. (247 F., 407), involved the trade-mark "Aunt Jemima," originally used on flour, which the defendant attempted to use on syrup, and there the court held that the goods, though different, are so related as to fall within the mischief which equity should prevent. (4) In Tiffany & Co., vs. Tiffany Productions, Inc. (264 N.Y.S., 459; 23 Trade-mark Reporter, 183), the plaintiff, a jewelry concern, was granted injunctive relief against the defendant, a manufacturer of motion pictures, from using the name "Tiffany." Other famous cases cited on the margin, wherein the courts granted injunctive relief, involved the following trade-marks or trade-names: "Kodak," for cameras and photographic supplies, against its use for bicycles. 4 "Penslar," for medicines and toilet articles, against its use for cigars; 5 "Rolls-Royce," for automobiles. against its use for radio tubes; 6 "Vogue," as the name of a magazine, against its use for hats; 7 "Kotex," for sanitary napkins, against the use of "Rotex" for vaginal syringes; 8 "Sun-Maid," for raisins, against its use for flour; 9 "Yale," for locks and keys, against its use for electric flashlights; 10 and "Waterman," for fountain pens, against its use for razor blades. 11lawphil.net Against this array of famous cases, the industry of counsel for the petitioner has enabled him to cite on this point only the following cases: (1) Mohawk Milk Products vs. General Distilleries Corporation (95 F. [2d], 334), wherein the court held that gin and canned milk and cream do not belong to the same class; (2) Fawcett Publications, Inc. vs. Popular Mechanics Co. (80 F. [2d], 194), wherein the court held that the words "Popular Mechanics" used as the title of a magazine and duly registered as a trade-mark were not infringed by defendant's use of the words "Modern Mechanics and Inventions" on a competitive magazine, because the word "mechanics" is merely a descriptive name; and (3) Oxford Book Co. vs. College Entrance Book Co. (98 F. [2d], 688), wherein the plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to enjoin the defendant from using the word "Visualized" in connection with history books, the court holding that said word is merely descriptive. These cases cites and relied upon by petitioner are obviously of no decisive application to the case at bar. We think reasonable men may not disagree that shoes and shirts are not as unrelated as fountain pens and razor blades, for instance. The mere relation

34

or association of the articles is not controlling. As may readily be noted from what we have heretofore said, the proprietary connotation that a trade-mark or trade-name has acquired is of more paramount consideration. The Court of Appeals found in this case that by uninterrupted and exclusive use since 1910 of respondent's registered trade-mark on slippers and shoes manufactured by him, it has come to indicate the origin and ownership of said goods. It is certainly not farfetched to surmise that the selection by petitioner of the same trade-mark for pants and shirts was motivated by a desire to get a free ride on the reputation and selling power it has acquired at the hands of the respondent. As observed in another case, 12 the field from which a person may select a trade-mark is practically unlimited, and hence there is no excuse for impinging upon or even closely approaching the mark of a business rival. In the unlimited field of choice, what could have been petitioner's purpose in selecting "Ang Tibay" if not for its fame? Lastly, in her fifth assignment of error petitioner seems to make a frantic effort to retain the use of the mark "Ang Tibay." Her counsel suggests that instead of enjoining her from using it, she may be required to state in her labels affixed to her products the inscription: "Not manufactured by Toribio Teodoro." We think such practice would be unethical and unworthy of a reputable businessman. To the suggestion of petitioner, respondent may say, not without justice though with a tinge of bitterness: "Why offer a perpetual apology or explanation as to the origin of your products in order to use my trade-mark instead of creating one of your own?" On our part may we add, without meaning to be harsh, that a self-respecting person does not remain in the shelter of another but builds one of his own. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner in the three instances. So ordered. Yulo, C.J., Moran, Paras and Bocobo, JJ., concur. G.R. No. 143993 August 18, 2004 MCDONALD'S CORPORATION and MCGEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioners, vs. L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC., FRANCIS B. DY, EDNA A. DY, RENE B. DY, WILLIAM B. DY, JESUS AYCARDO, ARACELI AYCARDO, and GRACE HUERTO, respondents.

DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for review1 of the Decision dated 26 November 1999 of the Court of Appeals2 finding respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. not liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition and ordering petitioners to pay respondents P1,900,000 in damages, and of its Resolution dated 11 July 2000 denying reconsideration. The Court of Appeals' Decision reversed the 5 September 1994 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 137, finding respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Facts Petitioner McDonald's Corporation ("McDonald's") is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States. McDonald's operates, by itself or through its franchisees, a global chain of fast-food restaurants. McDonald's4 owns a family of marks5 including the "Big Mac" mark for its "double-decker hamburger sandwich."6 McDonald's registered this trademark with the United States Trademark Registry on 16 October 1979.7 Based on this Home Registration, McDonald's applied for the registration of the same mark in the Principal Register of the then Philippine Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology ("PBPTT"), now the Intellectual Property Office ("IPO"). Pending approval of its application, McDonald's introduced its "Big Mac" hamburger sandwiches in the Philippine market in September 1981. On 18 July 1985, the PBPTT allowed registration of the "Big Mac" mark in the Principal Register based on its Home Registration in the United States. Like its other marks, McDonald's displays the "Big Mac" mark in items8 and paraphernalia9 in its restaurants, and in its outdoor and indoor signages. From 1982 to 1990, McDonald's spent P10.5 million in advertisement for "Big Mac" hamburger sandwiches alone.10 Petitioner McGeorge Food Industries ("petitioner McGeorge"), a domestic corporation, is McDonald's Philippine franchisee.11

35

Respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. ("respondent corporation") is a domestic corporation which operates fast-food outlets and snack vans in Metro Manila and nearby provinces.12 Respondent corporation's menu includes hamburger sandwiches and other food items.13 Respondents Francis B. Dy, Edna A. Dy, Rene B. Dy, William B. Dy, Jesus Aycardo, Araceli Aycardo, and Grace Huerto ("private respondents") are the incorporators, stockholders and directors of respondent corporation.14

In their Reply, petitioners denied respondents' claim that McDonald's is not the exclusive owner of the "Big Mac" mark. Petitioners asserted that while the Isaiyas Group and Topacio did register the "Big Mac" mark ahead of McDonald's, the Isaiyas Group did so only in the Supplemental Register of the PBPTT and such registration does not provide any protection. McDonald's disclosed that it had acquired Topacio's rights to his registration in a Deed of Assignment dated 18 May 1981.18

On 21 October 1988, respondent corporation applied with the PBPTT for the registration of the "Big Mak" mark for its hamburger sandwiches. McDonald's opposed respondent corporation's application on the ground that "Big Mak" was a colorable imitation of its registered "Big Mac" mark for the same food products. McDonald's also informed respondent Francis Dy ("respondent Dy"), the chairman of the Board of Directors of respondent corporation, of its exclusive right to the "Big Mac" mark and requested him to desist from using the "Big Mac" mark or any similar mark.

The Trial Court's Ruling

Having received no reply from respondent Dy, petitioners on 6 June 1990 sued respondents in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 137 ("RTC"), for trademark infringement and unfair competition. In its Order of 11 July 1990, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") against respondents enjoining them from using the "Big Mak" mark in the operation of their business in the National Capital Region.15 On 16 August 1990, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction replacing the TRO.16 In their Answer, respondents admitted that they have been using the name "Big Mak Burger" for their fast-food business. Respondents claimed, however, that McDonald's does not have an exclusive right to the "Big Mac" mark or to any other similar mark. Respondents point out that the Isaiyas Group of Corporations ("Isaiyas Group") registered the same mark for hamburger sandwiches with the PBPTT on 31 March 1979. One Rodolfo Topacio ("Topacio") similarly registered the same mark on 24 June 1983, prior to McDonald's registration on 18 July 1985. Alternatively, respondents claimed that they are not liable for trademark infringement or for unfair competition, as the "Big Mak" mark they sought to register does not constitute a colorable imitation of the "Big Mac" mark. Respondents asserted that they did not fraudulently pass off their hamburger sandwiches as those of petitioners' Big Mac hamburgers.17 Respondents sought damages in their counterclaim.

On 5 September 1994, the RTC rendered judgment ("RTC Decision") finding respondent corporation liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, the RTC dismissed the complaint against private respondents and the counterclaim against petitioners for lack of merit and insufficiency of evidence. The RTC held: Undeniably, the mark "B[ig] M[ac]" is a registered trademark for plaintiff McDonald's, and as such, it is entitled [to] protection against infringement. xxxx There exist some distinctions between the names "B[ig] M[ac]" and "B[ig] M[ak]" as appearing in the respective signages, wrappers and containers of the food products of the parties. But infringement goes beyond the physical features of the questioned name and the original name. There are still other factors to be considered. xxxx Significantly, the contending parties are both in the business of fast-food chains and restaurants. An average person who is hungry and wants to eat a hamburger sandwich may not be discriminating enough to look for a McDonald's restaurant and buy a "B[ig] M[ac]" hamburger. Once he sees a stall selling hamburger sandwich, in all likelihood, he will dip into his pocket and order a "B[ig] M[ak]" hamburger sandwich. Plaintiff McDonald's 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 corporation's 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

36

confused or deceived into thinking that the "B[ig] M[ak]" hamburger sandwich he bought is a food-product of plaintiff McDonald's, or a subsidiary or allied outlet thereof. Surely, defendant corporation has its own secret ingredients to make its hamburger sandwiches as palatable and as tasty as the other brands in the market, considering the keen competition among mushrooming hamburger stands and multinational fast-food chains and restaurants. Hence, the trademark "B[ig] M[ac]" has been infringed by defendant corporation when it used the name "B[ig] M[ak]" in its signages, wrappers, and containers in connection with its food business. xxxx Did the same acts of defendants in using the name "B[ig] M[ak]" as a trademark or tradename in their signages, or in causing the name "B[ig] M[ak]" to be printed on the wrappers and containers of their food products also constitute an act of unfair competition under Section 29 of the Trademark Law?

plaintiffs have established their valid cause of action against the defendants for trademark infringement and unfair competition and for damages.19 The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision provides: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiffs McDonald's Corporation and McGeorge Food Industries, Inc. and against defendant L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., as follows: 1. The writ of preliminary injunction issued in this case on [16 August 1990] is made permanent; 2. Defendant L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. is ordered to pay plaintiffs actual damages in the amount of P400,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of P100,000.00;

The answer is in the affirmative. xxxx The xxx provision of the law concerning unfair competition is broader and more inclusive than the law concerning the infringement of trademark, which is of more limited range, but within its narrower range recognizes a more exclusive right derived by the adoption and registration of the trademark by the person whose goods or services are first associated therewith. xxx Notwithstanding the distinction between an action for trademark infringement and an action for unfair competition, however, the law extends substantially the same relief to the injured party for both cases. (See Sections 23 and 29 of Republic Act No. 166) Any conduct may be said to constitute unfair competition if the effect is to pass off on the public the goods of one man as the goods of another. The choice of "B[ig] M[ak]" as tradename by defendant corporation is not merely for sentimental reasons but was clearly made to take advantage of the reputation, popularity and the established goodwill of plaintiff McDonald's. For, as stated in Section 29, a person is guilty of unfair competition who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance, of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would likely influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer other than the actual manufacturer or dealer. Thus,

3. The complaint against defendants Francis B. Dy, Edna A. Dy, Rene B. Dy, Wiliam B. Dy, Jesus Aycardo, Araceli Aycardo and Grace Huerto, as well as all counter-claims, are dismissed for lack of merit as well as for insufficiency of evidence.20 Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals On 26 November 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment ("Court of Appeals' Decision") reversing the RTC Decision and ordering McDonald's to pay respondents P1,600,000 as actual and compensatory damages and P300,000 as moral damages. The Court of Appeals held: Plaintiffs-appellees in the instant case would like to impress on this Court that the use of defendants-appellants of its corporate name – the whole "L.C. B[ig] M[ak] B[urger], I[nc]." which appears on their food packages, signages and advertisements is an infringement of their trademark "B[ig] M[ac]" which they use to identify [their] double decker sandwich, sold in a Styrofoam box packaging material with the McDonald's logo of umbrella "M" stamped thereon, together with the printed mark in red bl[o]ck capital letters, the words being separated by a single space. Specifically, plaintiffs-appellees argue that defendants-appellants' use of their corporate name is a colorable imitation of their trademark "Big Mac".

37

xxxx To Our mind, however, this Court is fully convinced that no colorable imitation exists. As the definition dictates, it is not sufficient that a similarity exists in both names, but that more importantly, the over-all presentation, or in their essential, substantive and distinctive parts is such as would likely MISLEAD or CONFUSE persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article. A careful comparison of the way the trademark "B[ig] M[ac]" is being used by plaintiffs-appellees and corporate name L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. by defendants-appellants, would readily reveal that no confusion could take place, or that the ordinary purchasers would be misled by it. As pointed out by defendants-appellants, the plaintiffs-appellees' trademark is used to designate only one product, a double decker sandwich sold in a Styrofoam box with the "McDonalds" logo. On the other hand, what the defendants-appellants corporation is using is not a trademark for its food product but a business or corporate name. They use the business name "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." in their restaurant business which serves diversified food items such as siopao, noodles, pizza, and sandwiches such as hotdog, ham, fish burger and hamburger. Secondly, defendantsappellants' corporate or business name appearing in the food packages and signages are written in silhouette red-orange letters with the "b" and "m" in upper case letters. Above the words "Big Mak" are the upper case letter "L.C.". Below the words "Big Mak" are the words "Burger, Inc." spelled out in upper case letters. Furthermore, said corporate or business name appearing in such food packages and signages is always accompanied by the company mascot, a young chubby boy named Maky who wears a red T-shirt with the upper case "m" appearing therein and a blue lower garment. Finally, the defendants-appellants' food packages are made of plastic material. xxxx xxx [I]t is readily apparent to the naked eye that there appears a vast difference in the appearance of the product and the manner that the tradename "Big Mak" is being used and presented to the public. As earlier noted, there are glaring dissimilarities between plaintiffs-appellees' trademark and defendants-appellants' corporate name. Plaintiffs-appellees' product carrying the trademark "B[ig] M[ac]" is a double decker sandwich (depicted in the tray mat containing photographs of the various food products xxx sold in a Styrofoam box with the "McDonald's" logo and trademark in red, bl[o]ck capital letters printed thereon xxx at a price which is

more expensive than the defendants-appellants' comparable food products. In order to buy a "Big Mac", a customer needs to visit an air-conditioned "McDonald's" restaurant usually located in a nearby commercial center, advertised and identified by its logo - the umbrella "M", and its mascot – "Ronald McDonald". A typical McDonald's restaurant boasts of a playground for kids, a second floor to accommodate additional customers, a drive-thru to allow customers with cars to make orders without alighting from their vehicles, the interiors of the building are well-lighted, distinctly decorated and painted with pastel colors xxx. In buying a "B[ig] M[ac]", it is necessary to specify it by its trademark. Thus, a customer needs to look for a "McDonald's" and enter it first before he can find a hamburger sandwich which carry the mark "Big Mac". On the other hand, defendants-appellants sell their goods through snack vans xxxx Anent the allegation that defendants-appellants are guilty of unfair competition, We likewise find the same untenable. Unfair competition is defined as "the employment of deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which a person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or service, for those of another who has already established good will for his similar good, business or services, or any acts calculated to produce the same result" (Sec. 29, Rep. Act No. 166, as amended). To constitute unfair competition therefore it must necessarily follow that there was malice and that the entity concerned was in bad faith. In the case at bar, We find no sufficient evidence adduced by plaintiffsappellees that defendants-appellants deliberately tried to pass off the goods manufactured by them for those of plaintiffs-appellees. The mere suspected similarity in the sound of the defendants-appellants' corporate name with the plaintiffs-appellees' trademark is not sufficient evidence to conclude unfair competition. Defendants-appellants explained that the name "M[ak]" in their corporate name was derived from both the first names of the mother and father of defendant Francis Dy, whose names are Maxima and Kimsoy. With this explanation, it is up to the plaintiffs-appellees to prove bad faith on the part of defendants-appellants. It is a settled rule that the law always presumes good faith such that any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill motive. 21

38

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision but the appellate court denied their motion in its Resolution of 11 July 2000.

1. Procedurally, whether the questions raised in this petition are proper for a petition for review under Rule 45.

Hence, this petition for review.

2. On the merits, (a) whether respondents used the words "Big Mak" not only as part of the corporate name "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." but also as a trademark for their hamburger products, and (b) whether respondent corporation is liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition.23

Petitioners raise the following grounds for their petition: I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS' CORPORATE NAME "L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC." IS NOT A COLORABLE IMITATION OF THE MCDONALD'S TRADEMARK "BIG MAC", SUCH COLORABLE IMITATION BEING AN ELEMENT OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT. A. Respondents use the words "Big Mak" as trademark for their products and not merely as their business or corporate name. B. As a trademark, respondents' "Big Mak" is undeniably and unquestionably similar to petitioners' "Big Mac" trademark based on the dominancy test and the idem sonans test resulting inexorably in confusion on the part of the consuming public. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE INHERENT SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE MARK "BIG MAK" AND THE WORD MARK "BIG MAC" AS AN INDICATION OF RESPONDENTS' INTENT TO DECEIVE OR DEFRAUD FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING UNFAIR COMPETITION.22 Petitioners pray that we set aside the Court of Appeals' Decision and reinstate the RTC Decision. In their Comment to the petition, respondents question the propriety of this petition as it allegedly raises only questions of fact. On the merits, respondents contend that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in finding them not liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition and in ordering petitioners to pay damages. The Issues

The Court's Ruling The petition has merit. On Whether the Questions Raised in the Petition are Proper for a Petition for Review A party intending to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals may file with this Court a petition for review under Section 1 of Rule 45 ("Section 1")24 raising only questions of law. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises on what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 25 Here, petitioners raise questions of fact and law in assailing the Court of Appeals' findings on respondent corporation's non-liability for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Ordinarily, the Court can deny due course to such a petition. In view, however, of the contradictory findings of fact of the RTC and Court of Appeals, the Court opts to accept the petition, this being one of the recognized exceptions to Section 1.26 We took a similar course of action in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals27 which also involved a suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition in which the trial court and the Court of Appeals arrived at conflicting findings. On the Manner Respondents Used "Big Mak" in their Business Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the corporate name "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." appears in the packaging for respondents' hamburger products and not the words "Big Mak" only.

The issues are: The contention has merit.

39

The evidence presented during the hearings on petitioners' motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction shows that the plastic wrappings and plastic bags used by respondents for their hamburger sandwiches bore the words "Big Mak." The other descriptive words "burger" and "100% pure beef" were set in smaller type, along with the locations of branches.28 Respondents' cash invoices simply refer to their hamburger sandwiches as "Big Mak."29 It is respondents' snack vans that carry the words "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc."30 It was only during the trial that respondents presented in evidence the plastic wrappers and bags for their hamburger sandwiches relied on by the Court of Appeals.31 Respondents' plastic wrappers and bags were identical with those petitioners presented during the hearings for the injunctive writ except that the letters "L.C." and the words "Burger, Inc." in respondents' evidence were added above and below the words "Big Mak," respectively. Since petitioners' complaint was based on facts existing before and during the hearings on the injunctive writ, the facts established during those hearings are the proper factual bases for the disposition of the issues raised in this petition. On the Issue of Trademark Infringement Section 22 ("Section 22) of Republic Act No. 166, as amended ("RA 166"), the law applicable to this case,32 defines trademark infringement as follows: Infringement, what constitutes. — Any person who [1] shall use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or [2] reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate any such mark or trade-name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services, shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided.33 Petitioners base their cause of action under the first part of Section 22, i.e. respondents allegedly used, without petitioners' consent, a colorable imitation of the "Big Mac" mark in advertising and selling respondents'

hamburger sandwiches. This likely caused confusion in the mind of the purchasing public on the source of the hamburgers or the identity of the business. To establish trademark infringement, the following elements must be shown: (1) the validity of plaintiff's mark; (2) the plaintiff's ownership of the mark; and (3) the use of the mark or its colorable imitation by the alleged infringer results in "likelihood of confusion."34 Of these, it is the element of likelihood of confusion that is the gravamen of trademark infringement.35 On the Validity of the "Big Mac"Mark and McDonald's Ownership of such Mark A mark is valid if it is "distinctive" and thus not barred from registration under Section 436 of RA 166 ("Section 4"). However, once registered, not only the mark's validity but also the registrant's ownership of the mark is prima facie presumed.37 Respondents contend that of the two words in the "Big Mac" mark, it is only the word "Mac" that is valid because the word "Big" is generic and descriptive (proscribed under Section 4[e]), and thus "incapable of exclusive appropriation."38 The contention has no merit. The "Big Mac" mark, which should be treated in its entirety and not dissected word for word,39 is neither generic nor descriptive. Generic marks are commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods,40 such as "Lite" for beer41 or "Chocolate Fudge" for chocolate soda drink.42 Descriptive marks, on the other hand, convey the characteristics, functions, qualities or ingredients of a product to one who has never seen it or does not know it exists,43 such as "Arthriticare" for arthritis medication.44 On the contrary, "Big Mac" falls under the class of fanciful or arbitrary marks as it bears no logical relation to the actual characteristics of the product it represents.45 As such, it is highly distinctive and thus valid. Significantly, the trademark "Little Debbie" for snack cakes was found arbitrary or fanciful.46 The Court also finds that petitioners have duly established McDonald's exclusive ownership of the "Big Mac" mark. Although Topacio and the Isaiyas Group registered the "Big Mac" mark ahead of McDonald's, Topacio, as petitioners disclosed, had already assigned his rights to McDonald's. The Isaiyas Group, on the other hand, registered its trademark only in the

40

Supplemental Register. A mark which is not registered in the Principal Register, and thus not distinctive, has no real protection.47 Indeed, we have held that registration in the Supplemental Register is not even a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark on the goods specified in the certificate.48 On Types of Confusion Section 22 covers two types of confusion arising from the use of similar or colorable imitation marks, namely, confusion of goods (product confusion) and confusion of business (source or origin confusion). In Sterling Products International, Incorporated v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, et al.,49 the Court distinguished these two types of confusion, thus: [Rudolf] Callman notes two types of confusion. The first is the confusion of goods "in which event the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced to purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the other." xxx The other is the confusion of business: "Here though the goods of the parties are different, the defendant's product is such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the plaintiff, and the public would then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is some connection between the plaintiff and defendant which, in fact, does not exist." Under Act No. 666,50 the first trademark law, infringement was limited to confusion of goods only, when the infringing mark is used on "goods of a similar kind."51 Thus, no relief was afforded to the party whose registered mark or its colorable imitation is used on different although related goods. To remedy this situation, Congress enacted RA 166 on 20 June 1947. In defining trademark infringement, Section 22 of RA 166 deleted the requirement in question and expanded its scope to include such use of the mark or its colorable imitation that is likely to result in confusion on "the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business."52 Thus, while there is confusion of goods when the products are competing, confusion of business exists when the products are non-competing but related enough to produce confusion of affiliation.53 On Whether Confusion of Goods and Confusion of Business are Applicable Petitioners claim that respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark on respondents' hamburgers results in confusion of goods, particularly with

respect to petitioners' hamburgers labeled "Big Mac." Thus, petitioners alleged in their complaint: 1.15. Defendants have unduly prejudiced and clearly infringed upon the property rights of plaintiffs in the McDonald's Marks, particularly the mark "B[ig] M[ac]". Defendants' unauthorized acts are likely, and calculated, to confuse, mislead or deceive the public into believing that the products and services offered by defendant Big Mak Burger, and the business it is engaged in, are approved and sponsored by, or affiliated with, plaintiffs.54 (Emphasis supplied) Since respondents used the "Big Mak" mark on the same goods, i.e. hamburger sandwiches, that petitioners' "Big Mac" mark is used, trademark infringement through confusion of goods is a proper issue in this case. Petitioners also claim that respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark in the sale of hamburgers, the same business that petitioners are engaged in, results in confusion of business. Petitioners alleged in their complaint: 1.10. For some period of time, and without the consent of plaintiff McDonald's nor its licensee/franchisee, plaintiff McGeorge, and in clear violation of plaintiffs' exclusive right to use and/or appropriate the McDonald's marks, defendant Big Mak Burger acting through individual defendants, has been operating "Big Mak Burger", a fast food restaurant business dealing in the sale of hamburger and cheeseburger sandwiches, french fries and other food products, and has caused to be printed on the wrapper of defendant's food products and incorporated in its signages the name "Big Mak Burger", which is confusingly similar to and/or is a colorable imitation of the plaintiff McDonald's mark "B[ig] M[ac]", xxx. Defendant Big Mak Burger has thus unjustly created the impression that its business is approved and sponsored by, or affiliated with, plaintiffs. xxxx 2.2 As a consequence of the acts committed by defendants, which unduly prejudice and infringe upon the property rights of plaintiffs McDonald's and McGeorge as the real owner and rightful proprietor, and the licensee/franchisee, respectively, of the McDonald's marks, and which are likely to have caused confusion or deceived the public as to the true source, sponsorship or affiliation of defendants' food products and restaurant business, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer actual damages in the form of injury to their business reputation and goodwill, and of the dilution

41

of the distinctive quality of the McDonald's marks, in particular, the mark "B[ig] M[ac]".55 (Emphasis supplied) Respondents admit that their business includes selling hamburger sandwiches, the same food product that petitioners sell using the "Big Mac" mark. Thus, trademark infringement through confusion of business is also a proper issue in this case. Respondents assert that their "Big Mak" hamburgers cater mainly to the lowincome group while petitioners' "Big Mac" hamburgers cater to the middle and upper income groups. Even if this is true, the likelihood of confusion of business remains, since the low-income group might be led to believe that the "Big Mak" hamburgers are the low-end hamburgers marketed by petitioners. After all, petitioners have the exclusive right to use the "Big Mac" mark. On the other hand, respondents would benefit by associating their lowend hamburgers, through the use of the "Big Mak" mark, with petitioners' high-end "Big Mac" hamburgers, leading to likelihood of confusion in the identity of business. Respondents further claim that petitioners use the "Big Mac" mark only on petitioners' double-decker hamburgers, while respondents use the "Big Mak" mark on hamburgers and other products like siopao, noodles and pizza. Respondents also point out that petitioners sell their Big Mac double-deckers in a styrofoam box with the "McDonald's" logo and trademark in red, block letters at a price more expensive than the hamburgers of respondents. In contrast, respondents sell their Big Mak hamburgers in plastic wrappers and plastic bags. Respondents further point out that petitioners' restaurants are air-conditioned buildings with drive-thru service, compared to respondents' mobile vans. These and other factors respondents cite cannot negate the undisputed fact that respondents use their "Big Mak" mark on hamburgers, the same food product that petitioners' sell with the use of their registered mark "Big Mac." Whether a hamburger is single, double or triple-decker, and whether wrapped in plastic or styrofoam, it remains the same hamburger food product. Even respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark on non-hamburger food products cannot excuse their infringement of petitioners' registered mark, otherwise registered marks will lose their protection under the law. 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. Thus, the Court has declared: Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a trademark is entitled is not limited to guarding his goods or business from actual market competition with identical or similar products of the parties, but extends to all cases in which the use by a junior appropriator of a trade-mark or tradename is likely to lead to a confusion of source, as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining party has extended his business into the field (see 148 ALR 56 et seq; 53 Am Jur. 576) or is in any way connected with the activities of the infringer; or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of his business (v. 148 ALR, 77, 84; 52 Am. Jur. 576, 577).56 (Emphasis supplied) On Whether Respondents' Use of the "Big Mak" Mark Results in Likelihood of Confusion In determining likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests, the dominancy test and the holistic test.57 The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion. In contrast, the holistic test requires the court to consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity. The Court of Appeals, in finding that there is no likelihood of confusion that could arise in the use of respondents' "Big Mak" mark on hamburgers, relied on the holistic test. Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that "it is not sufficient that a similarity exists in both name(s), but that more importantly, the overall presentation, or in their essential, substantive and distinctive parts is such as would likely MISLEAD or CONFUSE persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article." The holistic test considers the two marks in their entirety, as they appear on the goods with their labels and packaging. It is not enough to consider their words and compare the spelling and pronunciation of the words.58 Respondents now vigorously argue that the Court of Appeals' application of the holistic test to this case is correct and in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.

42

This Court, however, has relied on the dominancy test rather than the holistic test. The dominancy test considers the dominant features in the competing marks in determining whether they are confusingly similar. Under the dominancy test, courts give greater weight to the similarity of the appearance of the product arising from the adoption of the dominant features of the registered mark, disregarding minor differences.59 Courts will consider more the aural and visual impressions created by the marks in the public mind, giving little weight to factors like prices, quality, sales outlets and market segments. Thus, in the 1954 case of Co Tiong Sa v. Director of Patents,60 the Court ruled: xxx It has been consistently held that the question of infringement of a trademark is to be determined by the test of dominancy. Similarity in size, form and color, while relevant, is not conclusive. If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another, and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. (G. Heilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent Brewing Co., 191 F., 489, 495, citing Eagle White Lead Co. vs. Pflugh (CC) 180 Fed. 579). The question at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether the use of the marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistakes in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers. (Auburn Rubber Corporation vs. Honover Rubber Co., 107 F. 2d 588; xxx) (Emphasis supplied.) The Court reiterated the dominancy test in Lim Hoa v. Director of Patents,61 Phil. Nut Industry, Inc. v. Standard Brands Inc.,62 Converse Rubber Corporation v. Universal Rubber Products, Inc.,63 and Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.64 In the 2001 case of Societe Des Produits Nestlé, S.A. v. Court of Appeals,65 the Court explicitly rejected the holistic test in this wise: [T]he totality or holistic test is contrary to the elementary postulate of the law on trademarks and unfair competition that confusing similarity is to be determined on the basis of visual, aural, connotative comparisons and overall impressions engendered by the marks in controversy as they are encountered in the realities of the marketplace. (Emphasis supplied)

The test of dominancy is now explicitly incorporated into law in Section 155.1 of the Intellectual Property Code which defines infringement as the "colorable imitation of a registered mark xxx or a dominant feature thereof." Applying the dominancy test, the Court finds that respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark results in likelihood of confusion. First, "Big Mak" sounds exactly the same as "Big Mac." Second, the first word in "Big Mak" is exactly the same as the first word in "Big Mac." Third, the first two letters in "Mak" are the same as the first two letters in "Mac." Fourth, the last letter in "Mak" while a "k" sounds the same as "c" when the word "Mak" is pronounced. Fifth, in Filipino, the letter "k" replaces "c" in spelling, thus "Caloocan" is spelled "Kalookan." In short, aurally the two marks are the same, with the first word of both marks phonetically the same, and the second word of both marks also phonetically the same. Visually, the two marks have both two words and six letters, with the first word of both marks having the same letters and the second word having the same first two letters. In spelling, considering the Filipino language, even the last letters of both marks are the same. Clearly, respondents have adopted in "Big Mak" not only the dominant but also almost all the features of "Big Mac." Applied to the same food product of hamburgers, the two marks will likely result in confusion in the public mind. The Court has taken into account the aural effects of the words and letters contained in the marks in determining the issue of confusing similarity. Thus, in Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. v. Petra Hawpia & Co., et al.,66 the Court held: The following random list of confusingly similar sounds in the matter of trademarks, culled from Nims, Unfair Competition and Trade Marks, 1947, Vol. 1, will reinforce our view that "SALONPAS" and "LIONPAS" are confusingly similar in sound: "Gold Dust" and "Gold Drop"; "Jantzen" and "Jass-Sea"; "Silver Flash" and "Supper Flash"; "Cascarete" and "Celborite"; "Celluloid" and "Cellonite"; "Chartreuse" and "Charseurs"; "Cutex" and "Cuticlean"; "Hebe" and "Meje"; "Kotex" and "Femetex"; "Zuso" and "Hoo Hoo". Leon Amdur, in his book "Trade-Mark Law and Practice", pp. 419-421, cities, as coming within the purview of the idem sonans rule, "Yusea" and "UC-A", "Steinway Pianos" and "Steinberg Pianos", and "Seven-Up" and "Lemon-Up". In Co Tiong vs. Director of Patents, this Court unequivocally said that "Celdura" and "Cordura" are confusingly similar in sound; this Court

43

held in Sapolin Co. vs. Balmaceda, 67 Phil. 795 that the name "Lusolin" is an infringement of the trademark "Sapolin", as the sound of the two names is almost the same. (Emphasis supplied)

more established "Big Mac" mark.69 This saves respondents much of the expense in advertising to create market recognition of their mark and hamburgers.70

Certainly, "Big Mac" and "Big Mak" for hamburgers create even greater confusion, not only aurally but also visually.

Thus, we hold that confusion is likely to result in the public mind. We sustain petitioners' claim of trademark infringement.

Indeed, a person cannot distinguish "Big Mac" from "Big Mak" by their sound. When one hears a "Big Mac" or "Big Mak" hamburger advertisement over the radio, one would not know whether the "Mac" or "Mak" ends with a "c" or a "k."

On the Lack of Proof of Actual Confusion

Petitioners' aggressive promotion of the "Big Mac" mark, as borne by their advertisement expenses, has built goodwill and reputation for such mark making it one of the easily recognizable marks in the market today. This increases the likelihood that consumers will mistakenly associate petitioners' hamburgers and business with those of respondents'. Respondents' inability to explain sufficiently how and why they came to choose "Big Mak" for their hamburger sandwiches indicates their intent to imitate petitioners' "Big Mac" mark. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding, respondents' claim that their "Big Mak" mark was inspired by the first names of respondent Dy's mother (Maxima) and father (Kimsoy) is not credible. As petitioners well noted: [R]espondents, particularly Respondent Mr. Francis Dy, could have arrived at a more creative choice for a corporate name by using the names of his parents, especially since he was allegedly driven by sentimental reasons. For one, he could have put his father's name ahead of his mother's, as is usually done in this patriarchal society, and derived letters from said names in that order. Or, he could have taken an equal number of letters (i.e., two) from each name, as is the more usual thing done. Surely, the more plausible reason behind Respondents' choice of the word "M[ak]", especially when taken in conjunction with the word "B[ig]", was their intent to take advantage of Petitioners' xxx "B[ig] M[ac]" trademark, with their alleged sentimentfocused "explanation" merely thought of as a convenient, albeit unavailing, excuse or defense for such an unfair choice of name.67 Absent proof that respondents' adoption of the "Big Mak" mark was due to honest mistake or was fortuitous,68 the inescapable conclusion is that respondents adopted the "Big Mak" mark to "ride on the coattails" of the

Petitioners' failure to present proof of actual confusion does not negate their claim of trademark infringement. As noted in American Wire & Cable Co. v. Director of Patents,71 Section 22 requires the less stringent standard of "likelihood of confusion" only. While proof of actual confusion is the best evidence of infringement, its absence is inconsequential.72 On the Issue of Unfair Competition Section 29 ("Section 29")73 of RA 166 defines unfair competition, thus: xxxx Any person who will employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action therefor. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition: (a) Any person, who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate

44

trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose; (b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or (c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another. (Emphasis supplied)

The essential elements of an action for unfair competition are (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor.74 The confusing similarity may or may not result from similarity in the marks, but may result from other external factors in the packaging or presentation of the goods. The intent to deceive and defraud may be inferred from the similarity of the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public.75 Actual fraudulent intent need not be shown.76 Unfair competition is broader than trademark infringement and includes passing off goods with or without trademark infringement. Trademark infringement is a form of unfair competition.77 Trademark infringement constitutes unfair competition when there is not merely likelihood of confusion, but also actual or probable deception on the public because of the general appearance of the goods. There can be trademark infringement without unfair competition as when the infringer discloses on the labels containing the mark that he manufactures the goods, thus preventing the public from being deceived that the goods originate from the trademark owner.78

are buying that of his competitors.80 Thus, the defendant gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of his competitor with the intention of deceiving the public that the goods are those of his competitor. The RTC described the respective marks and the goods of petitioners and respondents in this wise: The mark "B[ig] M[ac]" is used by plaintiff McDonald's to identify its double decker hamburger sandwich. The packaging material is a styrofoam box with the McDonald's logo and trademark in red with block capital letters printed on it. All letters of the "B[ig] M[ac]" mark are also in red and block capital letters. On the other hand, defendants' "B[ig] M[ak]" script print is in orange with only the letter "B" and "M" being capitalized and the packaging material is plastic wrapper. xxxx Further, plaintiffs' logo and mascot are the umbrella "M" and "Ronald McDonald's", respectively, compared to the mascot of defendant Corporation which is a chubby boy called "Macky" displayed or printed between the words "Big" and "Mak."81 (Emphasis supplied) Respondents point to these dissimilarities as proof that they did not give their hamburgers the general appearance of petitioners' "Big Mac" hamburgers.

To support their claim of unfair competition, petitioners allege that respondents fraudulently passed off their hamburgers as "Big Mac" hamburgers. Petitioners add that respondents' fraudulent intent can be inferred from the similarity of the marks in question.79

The dissimilarities in the packaging are minor compared to the stark similarities in the words that give respondents' "Big Mak" hamburgers the general appearance of petitioners' "Big Mac" hamburgers. Section 29(a) expressly provides that the similarity in the general appearance of the goods may be in the "devices or words" used on the wrappings. Respondents have applied on their plastic wrappers and bags almost the same words that petitioners use on their styrofoam box. What attracts the attention of the buying public are the words "Big Mak" which are almost the same, aurally and visually, as the words "Big Mac." The dissimilarities in the material and other devices are insignificant compared to the glaring similarity in the words used in the wrappings.

Passing off (or palming off) takes place where the defendant, by imitative devices on the general appearance of the goods, misleads prospective purchasers into buying his merchandise under the impression that they

Section 29(a) also provides that the defendant gives "his goods the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer." Respondents' goods are hamburgers which are also the goods of petitioners. If

45

respondents sold egg sandwiches only instead of hamburger sandwiches, their use of the "Big Mak" mark would not give their goods the general appearance of petitioners' "Big Mac" hamburgers. In such case, there is only trademark infringement but no unfair competition. However, since respondents chose to apply the "Big Mak" mark on hamburgers, just like petitioner's use of the "Big Mac" mark on hamburgers, respondents have obviously clothed their goods with the general appearance of petitioners' goods. Moreover, there is no notice to the public that the "Big Mak" hamburgers are products of "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." Respondents introduced during the trial plastic wrappers and bags with the words "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." to inform the public of the name of the seller of the hamburgers. However, petitioners introduced during the injunctive hearings plastic wrappers and bags with the "Big Mak" mark without the name "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." Respondents' belated presentation of plastic wrappers and bags bearing the name of "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." as the seller of the hamburgers is an after-thought designed to exculpate them from their unfair business conduct. As earlier stated, we cannot consider respondents' evidence since petitioners' complaint was based on facts existing before and during the injunctive hearings.

(made permanent in its Decision of 5 September 1994) and in ordering the payment of P400,000 actual damages in favor of petitioners. The injunctive writ is indispensable to prevent further acts of infringement by respondent corporation. Also, the amount of actual damages is a reasonable percentage (11.9%) of respondent corporation's gross sales for three (1988-1989 and 1991) of the six years (1984-1990) respondents have used the "Big Mak" mark.84 The RTC also did not err in awarding exemplary damages by way of correction for the public good85 in view of the finding of unfair competition where intent to deceive the public is essential. The award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is also in order.86 WHEREFORE, we GRANT the instant petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 26 November 1999 of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated 11 July 2000 and REINSTATE the Decision dated 5 September 1994 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 137, finding respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition. SO ORDERED.

Thus, there is actually no notice to the public that the "Big Mak" hamburgers are products of "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." and not those of petitioners who have the exclusive right to the "Big Mac" mark. This clearly shows respondents' intent to deceive the public. Had respondents' placed a notice on their plastic wrappers and bags that the hamburgers are sold by "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.", then they could validly claim that they did not intend to deceive the public. In such case, there is only trademark infringement but no unfair competition.82 Respondents, however, did not give such notice. We hold that as found by the RTC, respondent corporation is liable for unfair competition. The Remedies Available to Petitioners Under Section 2383 ("Section 23") in relation to Section 29 of RA 166, a plaintiff who successfully maintains trademark infringement and unfair competition claims is entitled to injunctive and monetary reliefs. Here, the RTC did not err in issuing the injunctive writ of 16 August 1990

46