Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23035)
Facts:
Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. v. Standard Brands Incorporated and Tiburcio S. Evalle, G.R. No. L-23035, July 31, 1975, Supreme Court First Division, Munoz Palma, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. (a domestic corporation) owned Certificate of Registration No. SR-416 for the trademark "PHILIPPINE PLANTERS CORDIAL PEANUTS," issued by the Patent Office on August 10, 1961, and used on canned salted peanuts. Respondent Standard Brands Incorporated (a Delaware corporation) owned prior Certificate of Registration No. SR-172 for the trademark "PLANTERS COCKTAIL PEANUTS," first used in the Philippines in December 1938 and registered July 28, 1958; Tiburcio S. Evalle appeared in his official capacity as Director of Patents and issued the challenged administrative decision.On May 14, 1962, Standard Brands filed Inter Partes Case No. 268 with the Director of Patents seeking cancellation of Philippine Nut's registration on grounds that the two marks are confusingly similar and that petitioner was not entitled to register its mark. Philippine Nut answered on June 1, 1962, denying confusing similarity. The parties submitted partial stipulations and evidence at hearings (including an amended partial stipulation, admitting priority of Standard Brands' use and petitioner’s first use on December 20, 1958), and introduced documentary and testimonial exhibits, including reproductions of the cans and labels.
On December 10, 1963, the Director of Patents issued Decision No. 281 granting cancellation, finding the dominant feature of both labels to be the word "PLANTERS," and noting similarities in color scheme, layout, and lettering that created confusing similarity and likelihood...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Director of Patents erred in cancelling petitioner’s Certificate of Registration on the ground that the two trademarks are confusingly similar.
- Whether the word "PLANTERS" is merely descriptive (thus unprotectable) absent proof of secondary meaning and, if so, whether respondent Standard Brands proved secondary meaning sufficient to bar petitioner’s use.
- Whether Standard Brands abandoned its trademark through non-use (including interruptions during wartime or import restrictions)...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)