Case Summary (G.R. No. 172276)
Factual Background
Nestle is a Swiss corporation that manufactures food products and beverages and registered the NAN trademark on April 7, 1969 for its line of infant powdered milk products classified under Class 6. Nestle distributed and promoted NAN nationwide. Dy, Jr. owned 5M Enterprises and imported Sunny Boy powdered milk from Australia which he repacked into plastic packs bearing the name NANNY, sold in three sizes for P8.90, P17.50 and P39.90, and likewise classified under Class 6. On August 1, 1985, Nestle demanded that Dy, Jr. cease using NANNY; Dy, Jr. did not comply. Nestle filed a complaint for infringement on March 1, 1990 in the RTC, Branch 31, Dumaguete City.
Pretrial and Transfer History
The trial court in Dumaguete dismissed Nestle’s complaint by order of June 4, 1990; the Court of Appeals set aside that order on February 16, 1993 and remanded for further proceedings. Pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 113-95, the case was transferred to the RTC, Branch 9, Cebu City, designated as a special court for intellectual property rights.
Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling
The RTC, Branch 9, rendered a decision on September 18, 1998 finding Dy, Jr. liable for trademark infringement. The court compared the marks and packaging but concluded that, applying the doctrine in Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the goods were sufficiently related and that the use of NANNY could imply origin from the maker of NAN, producing a not so remote probability of confusion despite several physical dissimilarities noted by the court.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling
The Court of Appeals, in its September 1, 2005 Decision, reversed the RTC. The CA held that the trial court erred in applying the related goods doctrine where the competing marks were dissimilar and that a holistic comparison demonstrated material differences in packaging, target users, price points, and overall presentation such that NANNY was not confusingly similar to NAN. The CA denied Nestle’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution of April 4, 2006.
Issue Presented
Whether Martin T. Dy, Jr. was liable for trademark infringement for using NANNY in connection with powdered milk products.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Disposition
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court set aside the September 1, 2005 Decision and the April 4, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the September 18, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu City, thereby holding Dy, Jr. liable for trademark infringement.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court began with the statutory definitions of infringement under Section 22, R.A. No. 166 and Section 155, R.A. No. 8293, and with the elements articulated in Prosource International, Inc. v. Horphag Research Management SA. The Court reiterated that the gravamen of infringement is the likelihood of confusion, which may take the form of confusion of goods or confusion of business. The Court explained the two principal tests for confusing similarity: the dominancy test, which focuses on the dominant or essential features of the marks, and the holistic test, which considers the totality of packaging and labels. The Court held that, in the factual milieu of the present case, the dominancy test was applicable. Relying on its recent jurisprudence, including Prosource, McDonald’s Corporation cases, and Marvex Commercial Company, Inc. v. Petra Hawpia & Company, the Court found that the mark NANNY contains as its prevalent feature the sequence of letters “NAN.” The first three letters of NANNY are identical to NAN, and the aural effect renders the marks confusingly similar. The Court further held that the scope of protection afforded to a registered trademark owner extends to related goods and normal market expansions, citing Section 138, R.A. No. 8293 and Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery. The Court reasoned that NAN and NANNY share classification, descriptive properties and physical attributes as powdered milk products displayed in the same retail section, and that differences in intended age group and price did not negate the likelihood of confusion or bar the registered owner from using its mark on similar products across market segments. Considering these factors and controlling precedents, the Court concluded that NANNY was a colorable imitation of NAN and that Dy, Jr. acted without the co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172276)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A. is a Swiss corporation and the registrant of the NAN trademark under Certificate of Registration No. R-14621 dated 7 April 1969.
- Martin T. Dy, Jr. is the owner of 5M Enterprises who imported Sunny Boy powdered milk, repacked it and sold it under the mark NANNY.
- Nestle filed a complaint for trademark infringement on 1 March 1990 before the RTC, Judicial Region 7, Branch 31, Dumaguete City, which the trial court dismissed on 4 June 1990.
- The Court of Appeals set aside the dismissal and remanded the case in its 16 February 1993 resolution.
- The case was transferred to the RTC, Judicial Region 7, Branch 9, Cebu City, designated as a special court for intellectual property rights pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 113-95.
- The RTC, Branch 9, rendered a decision on 18 September 1998 finding Dy, Jr. liable for infringement.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in a 1 September 2005 decision and denied reconsideration in a 4 April 2006 resolution.
- The petition for review under Rule 45 challenged the Court of Appeals' reversal and sought reinstatement of the RTC decision.
Key Factual Allegations
- NAN is used for infant powdered milk products comprising PRE-NAN, NAN-H.A., NAN-1, and NAN-2 and is marketed nationwide by Nestle.
- NANNY was sold in plastic packs weighing 80, 180, and 450 grams and priced at P8.90, P17.50 and P39.90 respectively.
- NAN and NANNY are both classified under Class 6 as powdered milk products.
- Nestle sent a letter dated 1 August 1985 demanding that Dy, Jr. cease use of NANNY, which demand was not heeded.
- NAN products were sold in tin cans and bore blue-and-white labels with an elliptical device depicting nestling birds and the trade-name Nestle.
- NANNY packs bore blue-and-green packaging featuring cows and snow-capped mountains and used a different lettering style for the mark.
Trial Court Ruling
- The RTC found that NANNY was not a colorable imitation of NAN on a label-to-label comparison but nonetheless held that NANNY infringed NAN under the concept of related goods.
- The RTC considered the shared classification and the possibility that purchasers could be misled into associating NANNY with NAN because the word “nanny” denotes a child’s nurse.
- The RTC applied the reasoning of Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. Court of Appeals to conclude that non-competing goods may nevertheless be related such that confusion of business could arise.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and held that NANNY was not confusingly similar to NAN when viewed holistically because of glaring differences in packaging, presentation, price, and intended market.
- The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s extension of the related-goods doctrine because the competing marks were dissimilar and the factual milieu did not permit use of the doctrine as in Esso Standard.
- The Court of Appeals applied the holistic or totality test and emphasized label features, price disparity, and distinct trade channels as dispositive against a finding of likelihood of confusion.
Issue
- The issue presented was whether Dy, Jr. was liable for trademark inf