Case Digest (G.R. No. 139300)
Facts:
In Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. (a Philippine corporation with principal office in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila), petitioner adopted and used the trademark “Gold Top, Linenized for Extra Wear” on men’s socks beginning in 1958 and secured registration on the *Supplemental Register* of the Philippine Patent Office under Certificate No. SR-2206. Cluett Peabody Co., Inc. (a New York corporation and successor to Great American Knitting Mills, Inc.) held four registrations on the *Principal Register* under Republic Act No. 166 for marks applied to men’s socks—namely GOLD TOE (Reg. No. 6797, first use 1954), a *sock-and-magnifying-glass* device (Reg. No. 13465, first use 1952), a *triangular gold-lined toe* device (Reg. No. 13887, first use 1932), and LINENIZED (Reg. No. 15440, first use 1952). After hearings before six Hearing Officers, the Director of Patents issued on September 3, 1990 a decision canceling petitioner’s registration on grounds of confusing similarity and application of theCase Digest (G.R. No. 139300)
Facts:
- Trademark registrations and devices
- Respondent’s trademarks and devices for men’s socks
- “GOLD TOE” – Certificate No. 6797, September 22, 1958
- Device: sock with magnifying glass – Certificate No. 13465, January 25, 1968
- Device: gold colored lines in triangular toe area – Certificate No. 13887, May 9, 1968
- “LINENIZED” – Certificate No. 15440, April 13, 1970
- Petitioner’s trademark and device
- “GOLD TOP, Linenized for Extra Wear” – Certificate No. SR-2206 (Supplemental Register)
- Label: white center, blackish-brown background, magnified sock garter design, inscribed “Amigo Manufacturing Inc., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Made in the Philippines”
- Procedural history
- Bureau of Patents proceedings
- Respondent filed petition to cancel petitioner’s SR-2206 registration
- Hearings by six officers; Director of Patents issued decision (September 3, 1990) cancelling SR-2206
- Court of Appeals proceedings
- CA Decision (September 29, 1998, CA-GR SP No. 22792): reversed Director’s cancellation and reinstated SR-2206
- CA Resolution (January 14, 1999): granted respondent’s motion for reconsideration, reversed CA Decision, and affirmed the Director’s cancellation
- CA Resolution (June 30, 1999): denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
Issues:
- Issues raised by petitioner
- Whether the CA overlooked that petitioner’s actual use of its trademark preceded respondent’s, thus erring in affirming the Director’s decision
- Whether the CA erred in cancelling petitioner’s registration instead of respondent’s, given petitioner’s alleged prior use
- Whether the CA erred in affirming the finding of confusing similarity between the marks
- Whether the CA erred in applying the Paris Convention without considering absence of actual use in the Philippines
- Issues resolved by the Supreme Court
- Determination of the dates of first actual use of the trademarks
- Assessment of confusing similarity between the marks
- Applicability of the Paris Convention to respondent’s rights
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)