Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19297)
Petitioner and Respondent Details
Petra Hawpia & Co. is a partnership registered in the Philippines and has operated at 543 M. de Santos (Botica Divisoria), Manila. The firm filed its patent application on October 14, 1958, asserting the continuous use of "LIONPAS" since June 9, 1958. Marvex Commercial Co., Inc., the opposing corporation, holds a registered trademark under Certificate of Registration 5466, issued on September 29, 1956, for "SALONPAS," which they claim is being infringed upon through the application for "LIONPAS."
Applicable Law
The applicable laws in this case are derived from the Trade Mark Law of the Philippines, particularly the provisions concerning ownership, registration, and the criteria for determining trademark similarity. The legal burden rests on the applicant (Petra Hawpia & Co.) to prove their ownership of the trademark that they seek to register.
Background of Initial Proceedings
On August 16, 1961, after hearing the opposition, the Director of Patents ruled in favor of Petra Hawpia & Co., stating that confusion between the two trademarks was unlikely. Marvex filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied on November 27, 1961, leading to the appeal that is now under review.
Ownership of the Trademark "LIONPAS"
The crux of the matter regarding ownership rests on the provided evidence. The Director of Patents found exhibits supporting Petra Hawpia's assertion of ownership. Exhibits 5 and 6 included a letter from Osaka Boekii Kaisha, Ltd., indicating an assignment of rights to Petra Hawpia & Co. However, upon examination, there is a lack of competent evidence to substantiate that Osaka Boekii Kaisha, Ltd. had the authority to transfer ownership of the trademark from Asunaro Pharmaceutical Industry Co. The absence of an acknowledged assignment and incomplete documentation further undermines Petra Hawpia's claim.
Evaluation of Ownership Evidence
The Court highlighted deficiencies in the documentation. Exhibit 5 was not acknowledged and lacked proper authorization for validity under the Trade Mark Law. The assertions made in Exhibit 6 about ownership contradict earlier representations regarding Osaka Boekii’s status as a representative or distributor, further complicating the applicant's claims. Consequently, the applicant's right to register based on mere distributorship is insufficient to grant ownership rights under the applicability of the law.
Determination of Confusing Similarity
In discussing the issue of whether "LIONPAS" is confusingly similar to "SALONPAS," the Director of Patents' findings were not deemed conclusive by the Court. The Court undertook its analysis based on the auditory properties of the trademarks rather than their visual similarity. The phonetic attributes of the two names bear significant resemblance, particularly the suffix "PAS," which is common and descriptive in the context of topical medicinal products.
Conclusion on Trademark Similarity
Upon review, the Court determined that the sound of both "LIONPAS" and "SALONPAS" was sufficie
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-19297)
Case Overview
- The case involves a dispute over the registration of the trademark "LIONPAS" for medicated plaster filed by Petra Hawpia & Co. against the opposition of Marvex Commercial Co., Inc., which holds a registered trademark "SALONPAS."
- The Director of Patents initially dismissed Marvex's opposition, leading to the current appeal regarding the ownership of "LIONPAS" and its similarity to "SALONPAS."
Background Information
- Petra Hawpia & Co. filed a petition for trademark registration on October 14, 1958, claiming continuous use since June 9, 1958.
- Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. opposed the registration on July 24, 1959, arguing that "LIONPAS" would confuse consumers as it is similar to their registered trademark "SALONPAS," which was granted on September 29, 1956.
Legal Proceedings
- The Director of Patents ruled in favor of Petra Hawpia on August 16, 1961, stating that no confusion was likely to occur between the two trademarks.
- Marvex's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- The appeal raises three primary issues:
- Ownership of the trademark "LIONPAS" by Petra Hawpia & Co.
- The validity of the representation regarding the trademark registration indicated on the packaging.
- The potential