Case Digest (G.R. No. 48226) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Ana L. Ang v. Toribio Teodoro, G.R. No. 48226, decided on December 14, 1942 under the 1935 Constitution and Act No. 666 (Trade-Mark Law), the petitioner, Ana L. Ang, sought to register and use the mark “Ang Tibay” for pants and shirts. The respondent, Toribio Teodoro, however, had been using “Ang Tibay” as both a trade-mark and trade-name since 1910 on slippers, shoes, and indoor baseballs, registering it formally on September 29, 1915 (trade-mark) and January 3, 1933 (trade-name). From a modest P210 capital, Teodoro’s enterprise grew to a factory with modern machinery, generating gross sales of P8,787,025.65 between 1918 and 1938 and spending P210,641.56 on advertising during that period. Ang registered the mark for her garments on April 11, 1932, built a factory in 1937, and achieved P422,682.09 in sales in 1938, without prior proof of advertising expenditures. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed Teodoro’s complaint, finding the marks dissimilar, the goods non-c Case Digest (G.R. No. 48226) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- The Parties and Trademark Registrations
- Respondent Toribio Teodoro
- Began using “Ang Tibay” as both trade-mark and trade-name in 1910 on slippers, shoes, and indoor baseballs.
- Registered the trade-mark on September 29, 1915, and the trade-name on January 3, 1933.
- Business growth: started with P 210 capital; gross sales of P 8,787,025.65 (1918–1938); P 1,299,343.10 in 1937; P 1,133,165.77 in 1938.
- Advertising expenses totaled P 210,641.56 (1919–1938).
- Petitioner Ana L. Ang
- Registered “Ang Tibay” for pants and shirts on April 11, 1932.
- Established a factory in 1937; gross sales of P 422,682.09 in 1938.
- No proof of advertising “Ang Tibay” shirts or pants before 1938.
- Procedural History
- Court of First Instance of Manila (Judge Abelo)
- Acquitted petitioner: marks dissimilar; goods non-competing; no exclusive use by respondent; no fraud.
- Court of Appeals (Justices Bengson, Padilla, Lopez Vito, Tuason, Reyes)
- Reversed: found secondary meaning; goods similar or same class; infringement of secs. 3 & 7, Act No. 666.
- Ordered cancellation of petitioner’s registration and perpetual injunction.
- Supreme Court
- Petitioner filed certiorari; Director of Commerce did not appeal.
Issues:
- Whether “Ang Tibay” is a descriptive term relating to quality and thus invalid under section 2, Act No. 666.
- Whether the mark acquired secondary meaning denoting respondent’s goods.
- Whether pants and shirts are goods of a similar kind or class to shoes and slippers under sections 3 and 7, Act No. 666.
- Whether petitioner’s use of “Ang Tibay” infringes respondent’s trademark or constitutes unfair competition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)