Case Digest (G.R. No. 139300)
Facts:
The case involves Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. (petitioner) and Cluett Peabody Co., Inc. (respondent). The dispute centers around the cancellation of trademarks, specifically the marks "GOLD TOE" owned by the respondent and "GOLD TOP" used by the petitioner. The respondent, a New York corporation, claims exclusive ownership of several trademarks related to men's socks, including "GOLD TOE," which was registered under Certificate No. 6797 on September 22, 1958. Other trademarks owned by the respondent include various designs and representations associated with their products. The petitioner, a Philippine corporation, registered its trademark "GOLD TOP, Linenized for Extra Wear" and argued that it had been using this mark in commerce since September 1956, prior to the respondent's claimed use of "GOLD TOE" starting on May 15, 1962.
The case was initially heard by the Bureau of Patents, which found that the trademarks were...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 139300)
Facts:
Ownership of Trademarks:
Cluett Peabody Co., Inc. (respondent), a New York corporation, claimed exclusive ownership of the trademarks "GOLD TOE," "DEVICE" (representation of a sock and magnifying glass), "DEVICE" (gold-colored lines in a triangular area), and "LINENIZED." These trademarks were registered in the Philippines under various certificates issued between 1958 and 1970.
Petitioner’s Trademark:
Amigo Manufacturing Inc. (petitioner), a Philippine corporation, registered the trademark "GOLD TOP, Linenized for Extra Wear," featuring a dominant white center with a blackish-brown background and a magnified design of the sock’s garter.
Dispute:
Respondent filed a petition for the cancellation of petitioner’s trademark registration (SR-2206), alleging that "GOLD TOP" was confusingly similar to its "GOLD TOE" trademark. The Director of Patents granted the petition and canceled petitioner’s registration. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially reversed this decision but later reinstated the Director of Patents’ ruling upon reconsideration.
Issue:
- Whether petitioner’s trademark was used in commerce in the Philippines earlier than respondent’s actual use of its trademarks.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in canceling petitioner’s trademark registration instead of respondent’s.
- Whether petitioner’s trademark was confusingly similar to respondent’s trademarks.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the Paris Convention to grant respondent exclusive rights to the mark "GOLD TOE" without considering the absence of actual use in the Philippines.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)