Title
Ang vs. Teodoro
Case
G.R. No. 48226
Decision Date
Dec 14, 1942
Toribio Teodoro, using "Ang Tibay" since 1910, contested Ana L. Ang's 1932 registration for pants/shirts. SC ruled "Ang Tibay" valid, with secondary meaning, causing confusion; Ana L. Ang's use infringed, constituting unfair competition.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 48226)

Facts:

  1. Background of Respondent Toribio Teodoro:

    • Toribio Teodoro, initially in partnership with Juan Katindig and later as a sole proprietor, has used the trade-mark and trade-name "Ang Tibay" since 1910 for slippers, shoes, and indoor baseballs.
    • He registered "Ang Tibay" as a trade-mark on September 29, 1915, and as a trade-name on January 3, 1933.
    • His business grew significantly, with gross sales from 1918 to 1938 totaling P8,787,025.65, and advertising expenses amounting to P210,641.56 during the same period.
  2. Background of Petitioner Ana L. Ang:

    • Ana L. Ang registered the trade-mark "Ang Tibay" for pants and shirts on April 11, 1932.
    • She established a factory for these products in 1937, with gross sales in 1938 amounting to P422,682.09.
    • She did not spend any money on advertising "Ang Tibay" shirts and pants prior to 1938.
  3. Legal Proceedings:

    • The trial court ruled in favor of Ana L. Ang, stating that the two trade-marks were dissimilar and used on different, non-competing goods.
    • The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that "Ang Tibay" had acquired a secondary meaning through Teodoro's exclusive and continuous use since 1910. It also ruled that the goods were similar and that Ana L. Ang's use of the trade-mark violated sections 3 and 7 of Act No. 666 (Trade-Mark Law).

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Trade-Mark Validity:

    • A trade-mark must be distinctive and not merely descriptive. "Ang Tibay" was deemed fanciful and not descriptive of the goods, making it valid for registration.
  2. Secondary Meaning Doctrine:

    • A term that is initially incapable of exclusive appropriation may acquire a secondary meaning through long and exclusive use, indicating the origin of the goods.
  3. Similarity of Goods:

    • The test for similarity is whether the simultaneous use of identical or similar trade-marks on different goods is likely to cause confusion as to their origin. Pants and shirts were held to be similar to shoes and slippers in this context.
  4. Protection of Trade-Marks:

    • The law protects the reputation and goodwill associated with a trade-mark, even if the goods are non-competing. The owner of a trade-mark has a property right in its reputation and is entitled to protection against confusion or dilution.
  5. Equity and Fair Dealing:

    • The Court emphasized the importance of fairness in trade and the prevention of unfair competition, even in cases involving non-competing goods.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.