Title
Fruit of the Loom, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-32747
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1984
Fruit of the Loom sued General Garments for trademark infringement over "FRUIT FOR EVE," claiming similarity to "FRUIT OF THE LOOM." Courts ruled no confusion, affirming "FRUIT" is generic and designs differ significantly.
trademark infringement
lack of confusing similarity
trademarks

Procedural History and Trial Court Outcome

On March 31, 1965, petitioner filed a complaint for infringement of trademark and unfair competition against private respondent. Petitioner alleged that private respondent’s mark FRUIT FOR EVE was confusingly similar to petitioner’s FRUIT OF THE LOOM, particularly because both were used for women’s panties and related textile products. Petitioner also alleged that the color get-up and general appearance of private respondent’s hang tag, featuring a big red apple, was a colorable imitation of petitioner’s own hang tag.

Private respondent filed its answer on April 19, 1965. It invoked a special defense that its registered trademark was not confusingly similar to petitioner’s mark. Private respondent further contended that FRUIT FOR EVE was used only on ladies’ panties and pajamas, whereas FRUIT OF THE LOOM was used even on men’s underwear and pajamas.

At the pre-trial on May 5, 1965, the parties made admissions regarding registration and the “Reg. Phil. Patent Off.” notice. The parties also admitted that, at the time of its registration, petitioner did not file any opposition to private respondent’s trademark.

After trial, the former trial court ruled in favor of petitioner. It ordered the Bureau of Patents to cancel the registration of the trademark “Fruit for Eve”, permanently enjoined private respondent from using “Fruit for Eve,” and ordered private respondent to pay petitioner P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus costs.

Appellate Proceedings and Grounds Raised in the Petition

Both parties appealed to the former Court of Appeals. Petitioner’s appeal focused on the trial court’s failure to award damages. Private respondent sought reversal of the trial court’s ruling.

On October 8, 1970, the former Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition for review on certiorari.

In the Supreme Court, petitioner advanced several assigned errors. Its first and second arguments attacked the Court of Appeals’ view that the word “FRUIT”, being generic, was not capable of exclusive appropriation, and that a trademark registrant was not entitled to the exclusive use of every word in the mark. Petitioner argued that it could exclusively appropriate the word FRUIT in its trademark FRUIT OF THE LOOM.

Petitioner’s third and fourth arguments, which it characterized as the core of the controversy, maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no confusing similarity in sound and appearance between FRUIT OF THE LOOM and FRUIT FOR EVE. Petitioner asserted that the prominent and dominant features of both trademarks were the word FRUIT and the big red apple design, such that ordinary purchasers, upon seeing the word FRUIT and the apple on private respondent’s hang tag, would assume that the products originated from petitioner.

Petitioner also assigned error regarding the Court of Appeals’ supposed failure to address the allegation of fraudulent registration by private respondent, arguing that the appellate court did not pass upon the claim that private respondent obtained registration through fraud or misrepresentation.

Finally, petitioner contended that damages should have been awarded because private respondent allegedly profited from infringement.

Issue Framed by the Court

The Supreme Court framed the main issue as whether private respondent’s trademark FRUIT FOR EVE, together with its hang tag, was confusingly similar to petitioner’s trademark FRUIT OF THE LOOM and its hang tag, such as to constitute infringement of trademark rights and to justify the cancellation of the registration.

Governing Principles on Trademark Infringement and Confusing Similarity

The Court reiterated that infringement occurs when the use of the mark involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of the public, or to deceive purchasers as to the origin or source of the commodity. The Court cited earlier decisions consistent with that formulation, namely Co Tiong Sa vs. Director of Patents, Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Co. vs. Mojica, Sapolin Co. vs. Balmaceda, and La Insular vs. Jao Oge.

In trademark infringement cases, the Court stressed that the labels or hang tags themselves provided the best evidence for determining confusing similarity. It reasoned that a visual presentation of the competing hang tags was the most persuasive basis for comparison.

The Court further explained that in determining confusing similarity, comparison of the words alone was not controlling. The trademarks in their entirety, as they appeared in the labels or hang tags, had to be considered in relation to the goods to which the marks were attached. The Court cited Bristol Myers Co. vs. Director of Patents for the rule that the observer should focus on both the predominant words and other features in order to determine whether one mark is confusingly similar to the other.

The Court’s Comparison of the Marks and Hang Tags

Applying these principles, the Court examined the marks as they appeared on the parties’ submitted hang tags. It acknowledged that the only similar word between FRUIT OF THE LOOM and FRUIT FOR EVE was “FRUIT.” However, it held that mere pronunciation of the two marks did not readily establish confusion or mistake, emphasizing that FRUIT OF THE LOOM by itself was wholly different from FRUIT FOR EVE.

The Court rejected petitioner’s position that “FRUIT” was the dominant feature in both hang tags. It held that, even when printed on the hang tags, the word FRUIT was not made dominant over other words in the overall presentation.

As to design and coloring, the Court recognized some similarities, particularly the presence of a red apple at the center of each mark. Nevertheless, it held that the similarities were outweighed by differences that were glaring and striking to the eye. It identified several dissimilarities: first, petitioner’s hang tag had a round shape with a base resembling a paper rolled at the ends, while private respondent’s hang tag was a plain rectangle without a base; second, the design layout differed, with petitioner’s trademark written in an almost semi-circular form and private respondent’s written in a straight line in bigger letters, and with petitioner’s tag including clusters of grapes surrounding the apple while private respondent’s tag featured only an apple at the center; third, the colors were distinct, as petitioner’s hang tag was light brown while private respondent’s was pink with a white centerpiece, and the apples were differently colored, with petitioner’s apple being dark red and private respondent’s apple being light red.

The Court concluded that the similarities were lost amid the substantial differences in design and general appearance. It stated that it was more impressed by the dissimilarities than by the similarities. On that basis, it held that FRUIT OF THE LOOM and FRUIT FOR EVE did not resemble each other in a manner that would confuse or deceive an ordinary purchaser.

Perspective of the Ordinary Purchaser and Lack of Actual Likelihood of Confusion

The Court also addressed the standard of perception. It held that the ordinary purchaser should be credited with at least a modicum of intelligence, citing Carnation Co. vs. California Growers Wineries and Hyram Walke and Sons vs. Pe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms