ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Tweet Share
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > October 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-8072. October 31,
1956.] LIM HOA, Petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, Respondent.:

Custom Search Search

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-8072. October 31, 1956.]
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
LIM HOA, Petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, Respondent.

DECISION
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
On April 26, 1949, the Petitioner, Lim Hoa, filed with the Patent Office an application for the
registration of a trademark, consisting of a representation of two midget roosters in an attitude of
combat with the word “Bantam” printed above them, he claiming that he had used said trademark
on a food seasoning product since April 25 of that year. The application was published in the
Official Gazette in its issue of February, 1953, released for circulation on April 18, of the same
year. On April 30, 1953, the Agricom Development Co., Inc., a domestic corporation, opposed
the application on several grounds, among others, that the trademark sought to be registered was
confusingly similar to its register mark, consisting of a pictorial representation of a hen with the
words “Hen Brand” and “Marca Manok”, which mark or brand was also used on a food
seasoning product, before the use of the trademark by the applicant.
It is a fact that the family of C. Javier Advincula, since the year 1946, had adopted and used as a
trademark of said food seasoning product manufactured by it, the pictorial representation of a
hen. In 1947, the members of the Advincula family organized the Agricom Development Co.,
Inc., the Oppositor in this case, and said corporation took over the manufacture of the same food
DebtKollect Company, Inc. product of the Advincula family, including the use of the brand of the pictorial representation of a
hen but adding to it the word “Hen”. In the year 1948, an addition was made to the brand with the
words “Ve-Tsin, Hen Brand” and “Marca Manok,” and since then, on its food seasoning product
at different times, labels were used, in different colors but bearing the representation of a hen and
the words just mentioned. So that the application to register applicant’s brand, consisting of two
roosters is an attitude of combat, with the word “Bantam” printed above them, came along after
the use and registration of the mark or brand of the Oppositor corporation and its predecessor, the
Advincula family.
After considering the application and the opposition thereto, and after comparing the two brands,
the Director of Patents issued his order dated June 26, 1954, wherein he found and held that to
allow the registration of the applicant’s trademark would likely cause confusion or mistake or
deceive purchasers, and he refused registration of said trademark, under Rule 178 of the Revised
Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases, 1953. The Petitioner is now appealling said order.
After a careful examination of the facts above mentioned, and after comparing the two brands, we
ChanRobles Intellectual Property do not hesitate to say and to hold that there is such similarity between the two brands as to cause
Division confusion in the mind of the public that buys the food seasoning product on the strength and on
the indication of the trademark or brand identifying or distinguishing the same. In the case of Go
Tiong Sa vs. Director of Patents, (95 Phil., 1), we had occasion to say the following: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“ It has been consistently held that the question of infringement of a trademark is to be

cralaw

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
chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

imitate. (C. Neilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent Brewing Co., 191 F. 489, 495, citing Eagle
White Lead Co. v. 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, 590, citing Procter and Gamble Co. vs. J. L. Prescot Co., 49
F 2d 959, 18 CCPA, Patents, 1433; Pepsodent Co. vs. Comfort Manufacturing Co., 83 F 2d chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

906; 23 CCPA, Patents, 124)”

chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

The danger of confusion in trademarks and brands which are similar may not be so great in the
case of commodities or articles of relatively great value, such as, radio and television sets, air
conditioning units, machinery, etc., for the prospective buyer, generally the head of the family or
a businessman, before making the purchase, reads the pamphlets and all literature available,
describing the article he is planning to buy, and perhaps even makes comparisons with similar
articles in the market. He is not likely to be deceived by similarity in the trademarks because he
makes a more or less thorough study of the same and may even consult his friends about the
relative merit and performance of the article or machinery, as compared to others also for sale.
But in the sale of a food seasoning product, a kitchen article of everyday consumption, the
circumstances are far different. Said product is generally purchased by cooks and household help,
sometimes illiterate who are guided by pictorial representations and the sound of the word
October-1956 Jurisprudence descriptive of said representation. The two roosters appearing in the trademark of the applicant
[G.R. No. L-9132. October 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE and the hen appearing on the trademark of the Oppositor, although of different sexes, belong to
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. the same family of chicken, known as manok in all the principal dialects of the Philippines, and
FELICIANO LAPASARAN, ET AL., Defendants-
when a cook or a household help or even a housewife buys a food seasoning product for the
Appellees.
kitchen the brand of “Manok” or “Marca Manok” would most likely be upper most in her mind
[G.R. No. L-9245. October 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE and would influence her in selecting the product, regardless of whether the brand pictures a hen
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
DOMINADOR PANIS, Defendant, ALLIANCE
or a rooster or two roosters. To her, they are all manok. Therein lies the confusion, even
INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Petitioner- deception.
Appellant.
We do not see why applicant could not have stretched his imagination even a little and extended
[G.R. No. L-9257. October 17, 1956.] CARCAR his choice to other members of the animal kingdom, as a brand to differentiate his product from
ELECTRIC & ICE PLANT CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
similar products in the market. In a similar case decided by this Tribunal wherein, although one
brand consisting of the representation of a rooster was already being used by one party, another
[G.R. No. L-8989. October 18, 1956.] NGO SHIEK, party wanted to register a similar brand, consisting of two roosters on a similar product, namely,
Petitioner-Appellant, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
candy, this Court said: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

[G.R. No. L-10408. October 18, 1956.] SEVERINA

“Counsel for Defendant insists that there is no real resemblance between a picture of one rooster
MARABILLES, ET AL., Plaintiff and Appellants, vs. and a picture of two roosters; that no person could or would be deceived by the use by the chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

ALEJANDRO QUITO and AIDA QUITO, Defendants- Defendant of a trade-mark wholly distinct from that of the Plaintiff; that the fact that the chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

Appellees.
[G.R. No. L-8780. October 19, 1956.] In the matter
of the petition of YU KONG ENG alias JOHN D. YOUNG,
to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. YU KONG
ENG alias JOHN D. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-
Appellant.
[G.R. No. L-8155. October 23, 1956.] VIOLET
MCGUIRE SUMACAD, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs.
THE PROVINCE OF SAMAR, ET AL., Defendants; THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Appellant.
[G.R. No. L-8297. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESUS
PONCE, BAYANI CASTILLO, alias NAYO CASTILLO,
DOMINGO SAN PEDRO, alias HAPONG CABLING,
accused-Appellants.
[G.R. No. L-8585. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
VIRGILIO TRIOMPO Y BAGANTE, ET AL., Defendants.
ANTONIO NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant used two roosters as its trademark clearly discloses its innocence of any intent to
deceive, since a comparison of the trade-mark of the Plaintiff with that of the Defendant makes
apparent at once that was not intended to be an imitation of the other.
“We ask, however, why, with all the birds in the air, and all the fishes in the sea, and all the
animals on the face of the earth to chose from, the Defendant company selected two roosters as
its trade- mark, although its directors, and managers must have been well aware of the long-
continued use of a rooster by the Plaintiff in connection with the sale and advertisement of his
goods?
“There is nothing in the picture of one or more roosters which in itself is descriptive of the goods
sold by the Plaintiff or by the Defendant corporation, or suggestive of the quality of these goods.
A cat, or dog, a carabao, a shark, or an eagle stamped upon the container in which candies are
sold would serve as well as a rooster for purposes of identification as the product of Defendant’s
factory. Why did Defendant select two roosters as its trade-mark? We cannot doubt that it was
because the Plaintiff’s candies had acquired a certain reputation under the trade-mark of a rooster,
and the Defendant corporation hoped to profit unjustly by that reputation. Defendant knew that
the use of a single rooster would be prohibited as a technical infringement of Plaintiff’s trade-
mark, but it hoped that it could avoid that danger by the use of two roosters; and at the same chan roblesvirtualawlibrary

[G.R. No. L-8800. October 23, 1956.] TAN TIONG time get such advantage as it must have believed it could secure from the use of a design on the
BIO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL containers of its goods, not absolutely identical with that used by the Plaintiff, but so similar in
REVENUE, Respondent.
the dominant idea as to confuse or mislead the purchasers .” (Clarke vs. Manila Candy Co., 100 cralaw

[G.R. No. L-8936. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE Phil. 36)
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. OSCAR, ET AL., In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs. We do not deem
Defendants, FEDERICO GERONIMO alias Cmdr. it necessary to discuss and rule upon the other questions raised in the appeal.
OSCAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Felix, JJ.,
[G.R. No. L-9072. October 23, 1956.] THE PEOPLE concur.
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
CORNELIO FERRER, Defendant-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-9276. October 23, 1956.] THE

COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. V.
G. SINCO EDUCATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent. Back to Home | Back to Main

[G.R. No. L-8683. October 24, 1956.] In re: Petition

to annotate liens constituted in Acts Nos. 1812 and
QUICK SEARCH
1977. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner-
Appellant, vs. LUZON STEVEDORING COMPANY,
Oppositor-Appellee.

[G.R. No. L-9340. October 24, 1956.] PAULINO 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
NAVARRO, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ANTONIO 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G. LUCERO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
Manila, MANUEL H. BARREDO, THE TREASURER OF
THE PHILIPPINES, IGNACIO DE GUZMAN and 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
ALFREDO EDWARD FAWCETT, Respondents.
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

[G.R. No. L-8578. October 29, 1956.] SOUTHERN 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
MOTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EFRAIN 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
MAGBANUA, Defendant-Appellee.
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
[G.R. No. L-8993. October 29, 1956.] ALFREDO 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
HAHN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. YSMAEL & CO.,
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
INC., ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
[G.R. No. L-9085. October 29, 1956.] DONATA R. DE
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
CO and ELISA CO, Petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO G.
LUCERO, Judge Presiding Branch XI of the Court of 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
First Instance of Manila, and B. MORALES Co., LTD., 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Respondents.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
[G.R. No. L-7470. October 31, 1956.]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, vs. ROMEO
H. VALENCIA, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-7807. October 31, 1956.] ANA

GERARDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PLARIDEL SURETY Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
AND INSURANCE CO., INC., Defendants-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-7817. October 31, 1956.] ALFREDO M.

VELAYO, in his capacity as Assignee of the insolvent
COMMERCIAL AIR LINES, INC. (CALI), Plaintiff-
Appellant, vs. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS, LTD., Defendant-Appellee, YEK HUA
TRADING CORPORATION, PAUL SYCIP and MABASA &
CO., intervenors.

[G.R. No. L-8072. October 31, 1956.] LIM HOA,

Petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, Respondent.

[G.R. No. L-8688. October 31, 1956.] ANSELMA

LAMPA, DOMINGO LAMPA, BONIFACIO LAMPA and
CATALINA LAMPA, Petitioners, vs. RODRIGO
RAMIREZ and DONATO GUILA, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8773. October 31, 1956.] JAIME

ABOGADO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IGMIDIO AQUINO,
JUAN AQUINO, JULIANA PASION, CAMILO MATEO
and CONSOLACION VELUAN, Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-8804. October 31, 1956.] RUBEN F.

SANTOS, ETC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE
BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-8881. October 31, 1956.] REYNALDO T

SANTOS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILIANO ACUÑA, ET
AL., Defendants-Appellants.

[G.R. No. L-8996. October 31, 1956.] Testate Estate

of the deceased MARCELO DE CASTRO, ANGELITA DE
CASTRO, ISABEL DE CASTRO, and FELISA DE CASTRO,
Petitioner-Appellants, vs. EMILIO DE CASTRO, and
ALVARO DE CASTRO, Oppositors-Appellees.

[G.R. No. L-9014. October 31, 1956.] SIMEONA

BARCELONA, QUIRICO SAN GABRIEL, and TEODORA
SAN GABRIEL, Petitioners, vs. HILARION BARCELONA
and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9107. October 31, 1956.] In the matter

of the petition of ESTEBAN LUI (KIONG) to be
admitted citizen of the Philippines. ESTEBAN LUI
(KIONG), Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-9218. October 31, 1956.] MAXIMA

ALCALA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9248. October 31, 1956.] COLLECTOR

OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, vs. MARCELO
STEEL CORPORATION and COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9316. October 31, 1956.] TRINIDAD L.

AURELIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO BAQUIRAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-9335. October 31, 1956.] CONCORDIA

MEJIA DE LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANDRES
GAMPONIA, Defendant-Appellant.

[G.R. No. L-9380. October 31, 1956.] RIZAL L.

NAPIZA, VICENTE RIVERA and JULIO HAMOS,
Petitioners, vs. BERNARDINO MILICIO and THE
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9408. October 31, 1956.] EMILIO Y.

HILADO, Petitioner, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE and THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-9484. October 31, 1956.] APOLINARIA

MALOPING, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TEOFILO COBA,
Defendant-Appellee.

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED