Facts:

The case involves Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. as the petitioner and Petra Hawpia & Co. along with the Director of Patents as respondents. The events leading to this case began on October 14, 1958, when Petra Hawpia & Co., a partnership operating at 543 M. de Santos (Botica Divisoria), Manila, filed a petition with the Philippine Patent Office to register the trademark "LIONPAS" for its medicated plaster. The applicant claimed continuous use of the trademark in the Philippines since June 9, 1958. In response, Marvex Commercial Co., Inc., a corporation also organized under Philippine law, filed an opposition on July 24, 1959. Marvex argued that the registration of "LIONPAS" would infringe upon its rights to the trademark "SALONPAS," which was already registered under Certificate of Registration 5466, issued on September 29, 1956. Marvex contended that the two trademarks were confusingly similar and would mislead the public. After a hearing,...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioner: Marvex Commercial Co., Inc.
   • Respondents: Petra Hawpia & Co. and the Director of Patents.

2. Trademark Application:

   • Petra Hawpia & Co. filed a petition on October 14, 1958, to register the trademark "LIONPAS" for medicated plaster, claiming continuous use in the Philippines since June 9, 1958.

3. Opposition by Marvex:

   • Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. opposed the registration on July 24, 1959, alleging that "LIONPAS" is confusingly similar to its registered trademark "SALONPAS" for medicated plaster. Marvex argued that the registration of "LIONPAS" would mislead the public and violate its rights.

4. Director of Patents' Decision:

   • The Director of Patents dismissed Marvex's opposition on August 16, 1961, ruling that confusion among purchasers was unlikely. Marvex's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 27, 1961, prompting the appeal.

5. Evidence Presented:

   • Petra Hawpia & Co. submitted Exhibits 5 and 6 to prove ownership of "LIONPAS." Exhibit 5 was a letter from Osaka Boeki Kaisha, Ltd., claiming assignment of rights to Petra Hawpia & Co. Exhibit 6 was a sworn statement by the presidents of Osaka Boeki Kaisha, Ltd. and Asunaro Pharmaceutical Industry Co., confirming the assignment.
   • Marvex presented evidence showing Petra Hawpia & Co. was merely a distributor of "LIONPAS," not the owner.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Ownership Requirement:

   • Under Sections 2 and 2-A of the Trade Mark Law, the right to register a trademark is based on ownership. The burden of proving ownership lies with the applicant. Petra Hawpia & Co. failed to meet this burden.

2. Confusing Similarity Test:

   • Trademarks are confusingly similar if they sound alike when pronounced, especially for goods of the same descriptive properties. The similarity between "LIONPAS" and "SALONPAS" was sufficient to cause confusion among consumers.

3. Role of the Director of Patents:

   • While the Director of Patents has the authority to administer trademark registration, the Supreme Court is not bound by the Director's findings on similarity or dissimilarity of trademarks.

4. Legal Precedents:

   • The Court relied on precedents such as Operators, Inc. v. Director of Patents and Co Tiong Sa v. Director of Patents to emphasize the importance of sound similarity in trademark disputes.