Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32747)
Facts:
The case involves Fruit of the Loom, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Rhode Island, USA, as the petitioner, and General Garments Corporation as the respondent. Fruit of the Loom owns two registered trademarks in the Philippines—FRUIT OF THE LOOM—with Certificates of Registration Nos. 6227 and 6680 issued in 1957 and 1958, covering men's, women's, and children's underwear and related textile products. General Garments holds a registered trademark, FRUIT FOR EVE, issued in 1963 under Certificate No. 10160, for garments similar to those of petitioner, including women's panties and pajamas.
In March 1965, petitioner filed a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIV, asserting that respondent’s trademark was confusingly similar to petitioner's and that respondent’s hang tag design—including a red apple—was a colorable imitation of petitioner’s tag. The respondent denied any
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32747)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner: Fruit of the Loom, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Rhode Island, USA, owns the registered trademark "FRUIT OF THE LOOM" in the Philippines. Certificates of registration Nos. 6227 and 6680 were issued on November 29, 1957, and July 26, 1958, covering various merchandise including men's, women's, and children's underwear (class 40), and textile fabrics.
- Private respondent: General Garments Corporation, a domestic corporation, owns the registered trademark "FRUIT FOR EVE" under Certificate No. 10160 issued January 10, 1963, covering garments similar to petitioner’s products such as women’s panties and pajamas.
- Proceedings
- On March 31, 1965, petitioner filed a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition against private respondent, alleging:
- "FRUIT FOR EVE" is confusingly similar to "FRUIT OF THE LOOM," especially in women’s panties and other textile goods.
- The color scheme and general appearance of private respondent's hang tag with a big red apple is a colorable imitation of petitioner’s hang tag.
- Private respondent answered on April 19, 1965, denying confusing similarity and argued that "FRUIT FOR EVE" was used only on ladies’ panties and pajamas, whereas petitioner’s trademark was broader, including men’s underwear and pajamas.
- During the pre-trial on May 5, 1965, the parties admitted:
- Petitioner’s trademark “FRUIT OF THE LOOM” is registered with the Bureau of Patents but did not bear the notice “Reg. Phil. Patent Off.”
- Private respondent’s “FRUIT FOR EVE” is registered and bears the notice “Reg. Phil. Patent Off.”
- Petitioner filed no opposition when private respondent’s mark was registered.
- Trial court ruled in favor of petitioner ordering:
- Cancellation of private respondent’s trademark registration "FRUIT FOR EVE."
- Permanent injunction against its use.
- Payment of P10,000 attorney’s fees and costs to petitioner.
- Both parties appealed to the former Court of Appeals:
- Petitioner contended the trial court erred in not awarding damages.
- Private respondent sought reversal of the judgment.
- On October 8, 1970, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ruling and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
Issues:
- Whether the word "FRUIT," being a generic word, is exclusively appropriable by petitioner in its trademark "FRUIT OF THE LOOM."
- Whether private respondent’s trademark "FRUIT FOR EVE" and its hang tag are confusingly similar in sound, appearance, and overall impression to petitioner’s "FRUIT OF THE LOOM" and its hang tag, thus constituting infringement.
- Whether private respondent’s registration was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to damages due to respondent’s alleged infringement.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)