UNNO COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,,vs.

GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION and TIBURCIO S. EVALLE, in his

capacity asDirector of Patents,
FACTS :
The Court affirms respondent Director of Patent's decision declaring
respondent General Milling Corporation as the prior user of the trademark
"All Montana" on wheat flour in the Philippines and ordering the
cancellation of the certificate of registration for the same trademark
previously issued in favor of petitioner Unno Commercial
Enterprises,Incorporated, it appearing that Unno Commercial Enterprises,
Inc. merely acted as exclusive distributor of All Montana wheat flour in the
Philippines. Only the owner of a trademark, trade name or service mark
may apply for its registration and an importer, broker,
inventor or distributor acquires no rights to the trademark of the goods he
is dealing with in the absence of a valid transfer or assignment of the trade
mark.On December 11, 1962, respondent General Milling Corporation
filed an application for the registration of the trademark "All Montana" to
be used in the sale of wheat flour. In view of the fact that the same
trademark was previously, registered in favor of petitioner Unno
Commercial Enterprises, Inc.. Respondent General Milling Corporation,
in its application for registration, alleged that it started using the
trademark "All Montana" on August 31, 1955 and subsequently was
licensed to use the same by Centennial Mills, Inc. by virtue of a deed
of assignment executed on September 20, 1962. On the other hand
petitioner Unno Commercial Enterprises, Inc. argued that the same
trademark had been registered in its favor on March 8, 1962 asserting
that it started using the trademark on June 30, 1956, as inventor or
broker for S.H. Huang Bros. & Co., a local firm.The Director of Patents,
after hearing, ruled in favor of respondent General Milling Corporation.

ISSUE :
Whether or not director of patents can issue cancellation of
the certification of registration?
HELD :
The Court finds without merit petitioner's argument that the Director of
Patents could not order the cancellation of' its certificate of registration in
an interference proceeding andt hat the question of whether or not a
certificate of registration is to be cancelled should have been brought in
cancellation proceedings. Under Rule 178 of the Rules of the Patent Office
in Trademark Cases, the Director of Patents is expressly authorized to
order the cancellation of a registered mark or trade name or name or
other mark of ownership in an inter partes case, such as the interference
proceeding at bar.The right to register trademark is based on ownership.
When the applicant is not the owner of the trademark being applied for, he
has no right to apply for the registration of the same. Under the
Trademark Law only the owner of the trademark, trade name or service
mark used to distinguish his goods, business or service from the goods,
business or service of others is entitled to register the same. The term
owner does not include the importer of the goods bearing the trademark,
trade name, service mark, or other mark of ownership, unless such
importer is actually the owner thereof in the country from which
the goods are imported. A local importer, however, may

make application for the registration of a foreign trademark, trade name

or service mark if he is duly authorized by the actual owner of the name or
other mark of ownership.
Thus, petitioner's contention that it is the owner of the mark "All
Montana" because of its certificate of registration issued by the Director
of Patents, must fail, since ownership of a trademark is not acquired
by the mere fact of registration alone. Registration merely creates a prima
facie presumption of the validity of the registration, of the registrant's
ownership of the trademark and of the exclusive right to the use thereof.
Registration does not perfect a trademark right. As conceded itself by
petitioner, evidence may be presented to overcome the presumption. Prior
use by one will controvert a claim of legal appropriation, by subsequent
users. In the case at bar, the Director of Patents found that "ample
evidence was presented in the record that Centennial Mills, Inc. was the
owner and prior user in the Philippines of the trademark 'All Montana'
through a local importer and broker. Use of a trademark by a mere
importer, inventor or exporter (the Senior Party herein) inures to the
benefit of the foreign manufacturer whose goods are Identified by the
trademark. The Junior Party has hereby established a continuous chain of
title and, consequently, prior adoption and use" and ruled that "based on
the facts established, it is safe to conclude that the Junior Party has
satisfactorily discharged the burden of proving priority of adoption and use
and is entitled to registration." It is well-settled that we are precluded
from making further inquiry,since the findings of fact of the Director of
Patents in the absence of any showing that there was grave abuse of
discretion is binding on us and the findings of facts by the Director
of Patents are deemed conclusive in the Supreme Court provided that they
are supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner has failed to show that
the findings of fact of the Director of Patents are not substantially
supported by evidence nor that any grave abuse of discretion was
committed