G.R. No. 143993 August 18, 2004

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION and MCGEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioners, vs.L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC., FRANCIS B. DY, EDNA A. DY, RENE B. DY, WILLIAM B. DY, JESUS AYCARDO, ARACELI AYCARDO, and GRACE HUERTO, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review1 of the Decision dated 26 November 1999 of the Court of Appeals2 finding respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. not liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition and ordering petitioners to pay respondents P1,900,000 in damages, and of its Resolution dated 11 July 2000 denying reconsideration. The Court of Appeals' Decision reversed the 5 September 1994 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 137, finding respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The Facts

Petitioner McDonald's Corporation ("McDonald's") is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States. McDonald's operates, by itself or through its franchisees, a global chain of fast-food restaurants. McDonald's4 owns a family of marks5 including the "Big Mac" mark for its "double-decker hamburger sandwich."6 McDonald's registered this trademark with the United States Trademark Registry on 16 October 1979.7 Based on this Home Registration, McDonald's applied for the registration of the same mark in the Principal Register of the then Philippine Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology ("PBPTT"), now the Intellectual Property Office ("IPO"). Pending approval of its application, McDonald's introduced its "Big Mac" hamburger sandwiches in the Philippine market in September 1981. On 18 July 1985, the PBPTT allowed registration of the "Big Mac" mark in the Principal Register based on its Home Registration in the United States.

Like its other marks, McDonald's displays the "Big Mac" mark in items8 and paraphernalia9 in its restaurants, and in its outdoor and indoor signages. From 1982 to 1990, McDonald's spent P10.5 million in advertisement for "Big Mac" hamburger sandwiches alone.10

Petitioner McGeorge Food Industries ("petitioner McGeorge"), a domestic corporation, is McDonald's Philippine franchisee.11

Respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. ("respondent corporation") is a domestic corporation which operates fast-food outlets and snack vans in Metro Manila and nearby provinces.12 Respondent corporation's menu includes hamburger sandwiches and other food items.13 Respondents Francis B. Dy, Edna A. Dy, Rene B. Dy, William B. Dy, Jesus Aycardo, Araceli Aycardo, and Grace Huerto ("private respondents") are the incorporators, stockholders and directors of respondent corporation.14

On 21 October 1988, respondent corporation applied with the PBPTT for the registration of the "Big Mak" mark for its hamburger sandwiches. McDonald's opposed respondent corporation's application on the ground that "Big Mak" was a colorable imitation of its registered "Big Mac" mark for the same food products. McDonald's also informed respondent Francis Dy ("respondent Dy"), the chairman of the Board of Directors of respondent corporation, of its exclusive right to the "Big Mac" mark and requested him to desist from using the "Big Mac" mark or any similar mark.

Having received no reply from respondent Dy, petitioners on 6 June 1990 sued respondents in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 137 ("RTC"), for trademark infringement and unfair competition. In its Order of 11 July 1990, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") against respondents enjoining them from using the "Big Mak" mark in the operation of their business in the National Capital Region.15 On 16 August 1990, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction replacing the TRO.16

In their Answer, respondents admitted that they have been using the name "Big Mak Burger" for their fast-food business. Respondents claimed, however, that McDonald's does not have an exclusive right to the "Big Mac" mark or to any other similar mark. Respondents point out that the Isaiyas Group of Corporations ("Isaiyas Group") registered the same mark for hamburger sandwiches with the PBPTT on 31 March 1979. One Rodolfo Topacio ("Topacio") similarly registered the same mark on 24 June 1983, prior to McDonald's registration on 18 July 1985. Alternatively, respondents claimed that they are not liable for trademark infringement or for unfair competition, as the "Big Mak" mark they sought to register does not constitute a colorable imitation of the "Big Mac" mark. Respondents asserted that they did not fraudulently pass off their hamburger sandwiches as those of petitioners' Big Mac hamburgers.17 Respondents sought damages in their counterclaim.

In their Reply, petitioners denied respondents' claim that McDonald's is not the exclusive owner of the "Big Mac" mark. Petitioners asserted that while the Isaiyas Group and Topacio did register the "Big Mac" mark ahead of McDonald's, the Isaiyas Group did so only in the Supplemental Register of the PBPTT and such registration does not provide any protection. McDonald's disclosed that it had acquired Topacio's rights to his registration in a Deed of Assignment dated 18 May 1981.18

The Trial Court's Ruling

On 5 September 1994, the RTC rendered judgment ("RTC Decision") finding respondent corporation liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition. However, the RTC dismissed the complaint against private respondents and the counterclaim against petitioners for lack of merit and insufficiency of evidence. The RTC held:

Undeniably, the mark "B[ig] M[ac]" is a registered trademark for plaintiff McDonald's, and as such, it is entitled [to] protection against infringement.

xxxx

There exist some distinctions between the names "B[ig] M[ac]" and "B[ig] M[ak]" as appearing in the respective signages, wrappers and containers of the food products of the parties. But infringement goes beyond the physical features of the questioned name and the original name. There are still other factors to be considered.

xxxx

Significantly, the contending parties are both in the business of fast-food chains and restaurants. An average person who is hungry and wants to eat a hamburger sandwich may not be discriminating enough to look for a McDonald's restaurant and buy a "B[ig] M[ac]" hamburger. Once he sees a stall selling hamburger sandwich, in all likelihood, he will dip into his pocket and order a "B[ig] M[ak]" hamburger sandwich. Plaintiff McDonald's fast-food chain has attained wide popularity and acceptance by the consuming public so much so that its air-conditioned food outlets and restaurants will perhaps not be mistaken by many to be the same as defendant corporation's mobile snack vans located along busy streets or highways. But the thing is that what is being sold by both contending parties is a food item – a hamburger sandwich which is for immediate consumption, so that a buyer may easily be confused or deceived into thinking that the "B[ig] M[ak]" hamburger sandwich he bought is a food-product of plaintiff McDonald's, or a subsidiary or allied outlet thereof. Surely, defendant corporation has its own secret ingredients to make its hamburger sandwiches as palatable and as tasty as the other brands in the market, considering the keen competition among mushrooming hamburger stands and multinational fast-food chains and restaurants. Hence, the trademark "B[ig] M[ac]" has been infringed by defendant corporation when it used the name "B[ig] M[ak]" in its signages, wrappers, and containers in connection with its food business. xxxx

Did the same acts of defendants in using the name "B[ig] M[ak]" as a trademark or tradename in their signages, or in causing the name "B[ig] M[ak]" to be printed on the wrappers and containers of their food products also constitute an act of unfair competition under Section 29 of the Trademark Law?

The answer is in the affirmative. xxxx

The xxx provision of the law concerning unfair competition is broader and more inclusive than the law concerning the infringement of trademark, which is of more limited range, but within its narrower range recognizes a more exclusive right derived by the adoption and registration of the trademark by the person whose goods or services are first associated therewith. xxx Notwithstanding the distinction between an action for trademark infringement and an action for unfair competition, however, the law

extends substantially the same relief to the injured party for both cases. (See Sections 23 and 29 of Republic Act No. 166)

Any conduct may be said to constitute unfair competition if the effect is to pass off on the public the goods of one man as the goods of another. The choice of "B[ig] M[ak]" as tradename by defendant corporation is not merely for sentimental reasons but was clearly made to take advantage of the reputation, popularity and the established goodwill of plaintiff McDonald's. For, as stated in Section 29, a person is guilty of unfair competition who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance, of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would likely influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer other than the actual manufacturer or dealer. Thus, plaintiffs have established their valid cause of action against the defendants for trademark infringement and unfair competition and for damages.19

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiffs McDonald's Corporation and McGeorge Food Industries, Inc. and against defendant L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., as follows:

1. The writ of preliminary injunction issued in this case on [16 August 1990] is made permanent;

2. Defendant L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. is ordered to pay plaintiffs actual damages in the amount of P400,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, and attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of P100,000.00;

3. The complaint against defendants Francis B. Dy, Edna A. Dy, Rene B. Dy, Wiliam B. Dy, Jesus Aycardo, Araceli Aycardo and Grace Huerto, as well as all counter-claims, are dismissed for lack of merit as well as for insufficiency of evidence.20

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 26 November 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment ("Court of Appeals' Decision") reversing the RTC Decision and ordering McDonald's to pay respondents P1,600,000 as actual and compensatory damages and P300,000 as moral damages. The Court of Appeals held:

Plaintiffs-appellees in the instant case would like to impress on this Court that the use of defendants-appellants of its corporate name – the whole "L.C. B[ig] M[ak] B[urger], I[nc]." which appears on their food packages, signages and advertisements is an infringement of their trademark "B[ig] M[ac]" which they use to identify [their] double decker sandwich, sold in a Styrofoam box packaging material with the

McDonald's logo of umbrella "M" stamped thereon, together with the printed mark in red bl[o]ck capital letters, the words being separated by a single space. Specifically, plaintiffs-appellees argue that defendants-appellants' use of their corporate name is a colorable imitation of their trademark "Big Mac".

xxxx

To Our mind, however, this Court is fully convinced that no colorable imitation exists. As the definition dictates, it is not sufficient that a similarity exists in both names, but that more importantly, the over-all presentation, or in their essential, substantive and distinctive parts is such as would likely MISLEAD or CONFUSE persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article. A careful comparison of the way the trademark "B[ig] M[ac]" is being used by plaintiffs-appellees and corporate name L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. by defendants-appellants, would readily reveal that no confusion could take place, or that the ordinary purchasers would be misled by it. As pointed out by defendants-appellants, the plaintiffs-appellees' trademark is used to designate only one product, a double decker sandwich sold in a Styrofoam box with the "McDonalds" logo. On the other hand, what the defendants-appellants corporation is using is not a trademark for its food product but a business or corporate name. They use the business name "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." in their restaurant business which serves diversified food items such as siopao, noodles, pizza, and sandwiches such as hotdog, ham, fish burger and hamburger. Secondly, defendants-appellants' corporate or business name appearing in the food packages and signages are written in silhouette red-orange letters with the "b" and "m" in upper case letters. Above the words "Big Mak" are the upper case letter "L.C.". Below the words "Big Mak" are the words "Burger, Inc." spelled out in upper case letters. Furthermore, said corporate or business name appearing in such food packages and signages is always accompanied by the company mascot, a young chubby boy named Maky who wears a red T-shirt with the upper case "m" appearing therein and a blue lower garment. Finally, the defendants-appellants' food packages are made of plastic material.

xxxx

xxx [I]t is readily apparent to the naked eye that there appears a vast difference in the appearance of the product and the manner that the tradename "Big Mak" is being used and presented to the public. As earlier noted, there are glaring dissimilarities between plaintiffs-appellees' trademark and defendants-appellants' corporate name. Plaintiffs-appellees' product carrying the trademark "B[ig] M[ac]" is a double decker sandwich (depicted in the tray mat containing photographs of the various food products xxx sold in a Styrofoam box with the "McDonald's" logo and trademark in red, bl[o]ck capital letters printed thereon xxx at a price which is more expensive than the defendants-appellants' comparable food products. In order to buy a "Big Mac", a customer needs to visit an air-conditioned "McDonald's" restaurant usually located in a nearby commercial center, advertised and identified by its logo - the umbrella "M", and its mascot – "Ronald McDonald". A typical McDonald's restaurant boasts of a playground for kids, a second floor to accommodate additional customers, a drive-thru to allow customers with cars to make orders without alighting from their vehicles, the interiors of the building are well-lighted, distinctly decorated and painted with pastel colors xxx. In buying a "B[ig] M[ac]", it is

necessary to specify it by its trademark. Thus, a customer needs to look for a "McDonald's" and enter it first before he can find a hamburger sandwich which carry the mark "Big Mac". On the other hand, defendants-appellants sell their goods through snack vans xxxx

Anent the allegation that defendants-appellants are guilty of unfair competition, We likewise find the same untenable.

Unfair competition is defined as "the employment of deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which a person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or service, for those of another who has already established good will for his similar good, business or services, or any acts calculated to produce the same result" (Sec. 29, Rep. Act No. 166, as amended).

To constitute unfair competition therefore it must necessarily follow that there was malice and that the entity concerned was in bad faith.

In the case at bar, We find no sufficient evidence adduced by plaintiffs-appellees that defendants-appellants deliberately tried to pass off the goods manufactured by them for those of plaintiffs-appellees. The mere suspected similarity in the sound of the defendants-appellants' corporate name with the plaintiffs-appellees' trademark is not sufficient evidence to conclude unfair competition. Defendants-appellants explained that the name "M[ak]" in their corporate name was derived from both the first names of the mother and father of defendant Francis Dy, whose names are Maxima and Kimsoy. With this explanation, it is up to the plaintiffs-appellees to prove bad faith on the part of defendants-appellants. It is a settled rule that the law always presumes good faith such that any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill motive. 21

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision but the appellate court denied their motion in its Resolution of 11 July 2000.

Hence, this petition for review.

Petitioners raise the following grounds for their petition:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS' CORPORATE NAME "L.C. BIG MAK BURGER, INC." IS NOT A COLORABLE IMITATION OF THE MCDONALD'S TRADEMARK "BIG MAC", SUCH COLORABLE IMITATION BEING AN ELEMENT OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT.

A. Respondents use the words "Big Mak" as trademark for their products and not merely as their business or corporate name.

B. As a trademark, respondents' "Big Mak" is undeniably and unquestionably similar to petitioners' "Big Mac" trademark based on the dominancy test and the idem sonans test resulting inexorably in confusion on the part of the consuming public.

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE INHERENT SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE MARK "BIG MAK" AND THE WORD MARK "BIG MAC" AS AN INDICATION OF RESPONDENTS' INTENT TO DECEIVE OR DEFRAUD FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING UNFAIR COMPETITION.22

Petitioners pray that we set aside the Court of Appeals' Decision and reinstate the RTC Decision.

In their Comment to the petition, respondents question the propriety of this petition as it allegedly raises only questions of fact. On the merits, respondents contend that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in finding them not liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition and in ordering petitioners to pay damages.

The Issues

The issues are:

1. Procedurally, whether the questions raised in this petition are proper for a petition for review under Rule 45.

2. On the merits, (a) whether respondents used the words "Big Mak" not only as part of the corporate name "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." but also as a trademark for their hamburger products, and (b) whether respondent corporation is liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition.23

The Court's Ruling

The petition has merit.

On Whether the Questions Raised in the Petition are Proper for a Petition for Review

A party intending to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals may file with this Court a petition for review under Section 1 of Rule 45 ("Section 1")24 raising only questions of law. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises on what the law is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 25

Here, petitioners raise questions of fact and law in assailing the Court of Appeals' findings on respondent corporation's non-liability for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Ordinarily, the Court can deny due course to such a petition. In view, however, of the contradictory findings of fact of the RTC and Court of Appeals, the Court opts to accept the petition, this being one of the recognized exceptions to Section 1.26 We took a similar course of action in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals27 which also

involved a suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition in which the trial court and the Court of Appeals arrived at conflicting findings.

On the Manner Respondents Used "Big Mak" in their Business

Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the corporate name "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." appears in the packaging for respondents' hamburger products and not the words "Big Mak" only.

The contention has merit.

The evidence presented during the hearings on petitioners' motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction shows that the plastic wrappings and plastic bags used by respondents for their hamburger sandwiches bore the words "Big Mak." The other descriptive words "burger" and "100% pure beef" were set in smaller type, along with the locations of branches.28 Respondents' cash invoices simply refer to their hamburger sandwiches as "Big Mak."29 It is respondents' snack vans that carry the words "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc."30

It was only during the trial that respondents presented in evidence the plastic wrappers and bags for their hamburger sandwiches relied on by the Court of Appeals.31 Respondents' plastic wrappers and bags were identical with those petitioners presented during the hearings for the injunctive writ except that the letters "L.C." and the words "Burger, Inc." in respondents' evidence were added above and below the words "Big Mak," respectively. Since petitioners' complaint was based on facts existing before and during the hearings on the injunctive writ, the facts established during those hearings are the proper factual bases for the disposition of the issues raised in this petition.

On the Issue of Trademark Infringement

Section 22 ("Section 22) of Republic Act No. 166, as amended ("RA 166"), the law applicable to this case,32 defines trademark infringement as follows:

Infringement, what constitutes. — Any person who [1] shall use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or [2] reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate any such mark or trade-name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services, shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided.33

Petitioners base their cause of action under the first part of Section 22, i.e. respondents allegedly used, without petitioners' consent, a colorable imitation of the "Big Mac" mark in advertising and selling respondents' hamburger sandwiches. This likely caused confusion in the mind of the purchasing public on the source of the hamburgers or the identity of the business.

To establish trademark infringement, the following elements must be shown: (1) the validity of plaintiff's mark; (2) the plaintiff's ownership of the mark; and (3) the use of the mark or its colorable imitation by the alleged infringer results in "likelihood of confusion."34 Of these, it is the element of likelihood of confusion that is the gravamen of trademark infringement.35

On the Validity of the "Big Mac"Mark and McDonald's Ownership of such Mark

A mark is valid if it is "distinctive" and thus not barred from registration under Section 436 of RA 166 ("Section 4"). However, once registered, not only the mark's validity but also the registrant's ownership of the mark is prima facie presumed.37

Respondents contend that of the two words in the "Big Mac" mark, it is only the word "Mac" that is valid because the word "Big" is generic and descriptive (proscribed under Section 4[e]), and thus "incapable of exclusive appropriation."38

The contention has no merit. The "Big Mac" mark, which should be treated in its entirety and not dissected word for word,39 is neither generic nor descriptive. Generic marks are commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods,40 such as "Lite" for beer41 or "Chocolate Fudge" for chocolate soda drink.42 Descriptive marks, on the other hand, convey the characteristics, functions, qualities or ingredients of a product to one who has never seen it or does not know it exists,43 such as "Arthriticare" for arthritis medication.44 On the contrary, "Big Mac" falls under the class of fanciful or arbitrary marks as it bears no logical relation to the actual characteristics of the product it represents.45 As such, it is highly distinctive and thus valid. Significantly, the trademark "Little Debbie" for snack cakes was found arbitrary or fanciful.46

The Court also finds that petitioners have duly established McDonald's exclusive ownership of the "Big Mac" mark. Although Topacio and the Isaiyas Group registered the "Big Mac" mark ahead of McDonald's, Topacio, as petitioners disclosed, had already assigned his rights to McDonald's. The Isaiyas Group, on the other hand, registered its trademark only in the Supplemental Register. A mark which is not registered in the Principal Register, and thus not distinctive, has no real protection.47 Indeed, we have held that registration in the Supplemental Register is not even a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark on the goods specified in the certificate.48

On Types of Confusion

Section 22 covers two types of confusion arising from the use of similar or colorable imitation marks, namely, confusion of goods (product confusion) and confusion of business (source or origin confusion). In Sterling Products International, Incorporated v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, et al.,49 the Court distinguished these two types of confusion, thus:

[Rudolf] Callman notes two types of confusion. The first is the confusion of goods "in which event the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced to purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the other." xxx The other is the confusion of business: "Here though the goods of the parties are different, the defendant's product is such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the plaintiff, and the public would then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is some connection between the plaintiff and defendant which, in fact, does not exist."

Under Act No. 666,50 the first trademark law, infringement was limited to confusion of goods only, when the infringing mark is used on "goods of a similar kind."51 Thus, no relief was afforded to the party whose registered mark or its colorable imitation is used on different although related goods. To remedy this situation, Congress enacted RA 166 on 20 June 1947. In defining trademark infringement, Section 22 of RA 166 deleted the requirement in question and expanded its scope to include such use of the mark or its colorable imitation that is likely to result in confusion on "the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business."52 Thus, while there is confusion of goods when the products are competing, confusion of business exists when the products are non-competing but related enough to produce confusion of affiliation.53

On Whether Confusion of Goods and Confusion of Business are Applicable

Petitioners claim that respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark on respondents' hamburgers results in confusion of goods, particularly with respect to petitioners' hamburgers labeled "Big Mac." Thus, petitioners alleged in their complaint:

1.15. Defendants have unduly prejudiced and clearly infringed upon the property rights of plaintiffs in the McDonald's Marks, particularly the mark "B[ig] M[ac]". Defendants' unauthorized acts are likely, and calculated, to confuse, mislead or deceive the public into believing that the products and services offered by defendant Big Mak Burger, and the business it is engaged in, are approved and sponsored by, or affiliated with, plaintiffs.54 (Emphasis supplied)

Since respondents used the "Big Mak" mark on the same goods, i.e. hamburger sandwiches, that petitioners' "Big Mac" mark is used, trademark infringement through confusion of goods is a proper issue in this case.

Petitioners also claim that respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark in the sale of hamburgers, the same business that petitioners are engaged in, results in confusion of business. Petitioners alleged in their complaint:

1.10. For some period of time, and without the consent of plaintiff McDonald's nor its licensee/franchisee, plaintiff McGeorge, and in clear violation of plaintiffs' exclusive right to use and/or appropriate the McDonald's marks, defendant Big Mak Burger acting through individual defendants, has been operating "Big Mak Burger", a fast food restaurant business dealing in the sale of hamburger and cheeseburger sandwiches, french fries and other food products, and has caused to be printed on the wrapper of defendant's food products and incorporated in its signages the name "Big Mak Burger", which is confusingly similar to and/or is a colorable imitation of the plaintiff McDonald's mark "B[ig] M[ac]", xxx. Defendant Big Mak Burger has thus unjustly created the impression that its business is approved and sponsored by, or affiliated with, plaintiffs. xxxx

2.2 As a consequence of the acts committed by defendants, which unduly prejudice and infringe upon the property rights of plaintiffs McDonald's and McGeorge as the real owner and rightful proprietor, and the licensee/franchisee, respectively, of the McDonald's marks, and which are likely to have caused confusion or deceived the public as to the true source, sponsorship or affiliation of defendants' food products and restaurant business, plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer actual damages in the form of injury to their business reputation and goodwill, and of the dilution of the distinctive quality of the McDonald's marks, in particular, the mark "B[ig] M[ac]".55 (Emphasis supplied)

Respondents admit that their business includes selling hamburger sandwiches, the same food product that petitioners sell using the "Big Mac" mark. Thus, trademark infringement through confusion of business is also a proper issue in this case.

Respondents assert that their "Big Mak" hamburgers cater mainly to the low-income group while petitioners' "Big Mac" hamburgers cater to the middle and upper income groups. Even if this is true, the likelihood of confusion of business remains, since the low-income group might be led to believe that the "Big Mak" hamburgers are the low-end hamburgers marketed by petitioners. After all, petitioners have the exclusive right to use the "Big Mac" mark. On the other hand, respondents would benefit by associating their low-end hamburgers, through the use of the "Big Mak" mark, with petitioners' high-end "Big Mac" hamburgers, leading to likelihood of confusion in the identity of business.

Respondents further claim that petitioners use the "Big Mac" mark only on petitioners' double-decker hamburgers, while respondents use the "Big Mak" mark on hamburgers and other products like siopao, noodles and pizza. Respondents also point out that petitioners sell their Big Mac double-deckers in a styrofoam box with the "McDonald's" logo and trademark in red, block letters at a price more expensive than the hamburgers of respondents. In contrast, respondents sell their Big Mak hamburgers in plastic wrappers and plastic bags. Respondents further point out that petitioners' restaurants are air-conditioned buildings with drive-thru service, compared to respondents' mobile vans.

These and other factors respondents cite cannot negate the undisputed fact that respondents use their "Big Mak" mark on hamburgers, the same food product that petitioners' sell with the use of their registered mark "Big Mac." Whether a hamburger is single, double or triple-decker, and whether

wrapped in plastic or styrofoam, it remains the same hamburger food product. Even respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark on non-hamburger food products cannot excuse their infringement of petitioners' registered mark, otherwise registered marks will lose their protection under the law.

The registered trademark owner may use his mark on the same or similar products, in different segments of the market, and at different price levels depending on variations of the products for specific segments of the market. The Court has recognized that the registered trademark owner enjoys protection in product and market areas that are the normal potential expansion of his business. Thus, the Court has declared:

Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a trademark is entitled is not limited to guarding his goods or business from actual market competition with identical or similar products of the parties, but extends to all cases in which the use by a junior appropriator of a trade-mark or trade-name is likely to lead to a confusion of source, as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining party has extended his business into the field (see 148 ALR 56 et seq; 53 Am Jur. 576) or is in any way connected with the activities of the infringer; or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of his business (v. 148 ALR, 77, 84; 52 Am. Jur. 576, 577).56 (Emphasis supplied)

On Whether Respondents' Use of the "Big Mak" Mark Results in Likelihood of Confusion

In determining likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence has developed two tests, the dominancy test and the holistic test.57 The dominancy test focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks that might cause confusion. In contrast, the holistic test requires the court to consider the entirety of the marks as applied to the products, including the labels and packaging, in determining confusing similarity.

The Court of Appeals, in finding that there is no likelihood of confusion that could arise in the use of respondents' "Big Mak" mark on hamburgers, relied on the holistic test. Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that "it is not sufficient that a similarity exists in both name(s), but that more importantly, the overall presentation, or in their essential, substantive and distinctive parts is such as would likely MISLEAD or CONFUSE persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article." The holistic test considers the two marks in their entirety, as they appear on the goods with their labels and packaging. It is not enough to consider their words and compare the spelling and pronunciation of the words.58

Respondents now vigorously argue that the Court of Appeals' application of the holistic test to this case is correct and in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.

This Court, however, has relied on the dominancy test rather than the holistic test. The dominancy test considers the dominant features in the competing marks in determining whether they are confusingly similar. Under the dominancy test, courts give greater weight to the similarity of the appearance of the

product arising from the adoption of the dominant features of the registered mark, disregarding minor differences.59 Courts will consider more the aural and visual impressions created by the marks in the public mind, giving little weight to factors like prices, quality, sales outlets and market segments.

Thus, in the 1954 case of Co Tiong Sa v. Director of Patents,60 the Court ruled:

xxx It has been consistently held that the question of infringement of a trademark is to be determined by the test of dominancy. Similarity in size, form and color, while relevant, is not conclusive. If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another, and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. (G. Heilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent Brewing Co., 191 F., 489, 495, citing Eagle White Lead Co. vs. Pflugh (CC) 180 Fed. 579). The question at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether the use of the marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistakes in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers. (Auburn Rubber Corporation vs. Honover Rubber Co., 107 F. 2d 588; xxx) (Emphasis supplied.)

The Court reiterated the dominancy test in Lim Hoa v. Director of Patents,61 Phil. Nut Industry, Inc. v. Standard Brands Inc.,62 Converse Rubber Corporation v. Universal Rubber Products, Inc.,63 and Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.64 In the 2001 case of Societe Des Produits Nestlé, S.A. v. Court of Appeals,65 the Court explicitly rejected the holistic test in this wise:

[T]he totality or holistic test is contrary to the elementary postulate of the law on trademarks and unfair competition that confusing similarity is to be determined on the basis of visual, aural, connotative comparisons and overall impressions engendered by the marks in controversy as they are encountered in the realities of the marketplace. (Emphasis supplied)

The test of dominancy is now explicitly incorporated into law in Section 155.1 of the Intellectual Property Code which defines infringement as the "colorable imitation of a registered mark xxx or a dominant feature thereof."

Applying the dominancy test, the Court finds that respondents' use of the "Big Mak" mark results in likelihood of confusion. First, "Big Mak" sounds exactly the same as "Big Mac." Second, the first word in "Big Mak" is exactly the same as the first word in "Big Mac." Third, the first two letters in "Mak" are the same as the first two letters in "Mac." Fourth, the last letter in "Mak" while a "k" sounds the same as "c" when the word "Mak" is pronounced. Fifth, in Filipino, the letter "k" replaces "c" in spelling, thus "Caloocan" is spelled "Kalookan."

In short, aurally the two marks are the same, with the first word of both marks phonetically the same, and the second word of both marks also phonetically the same. Visually, the two marks have both two words and six letters, with the first word of both marks having the same letters and the second word having the same first two letters. In spelling, considering the Filipino language, even the last letters of both marks are the same.

Clearly, respondents have adopted in "Big Mak" not only the dominant but also almost all the features of "Big Mac." Applied to the same food product of hamburgers, the two marks will likely result in confusion in the public mind.

The Court has taken into account the aural effects of the words and letters contained in the marks in determining the issue of confusing similarity. Thus, in Marvex Commercial Co., Inc. v. Petra Hawpia & Co., et al.,66 the Court held:

The following random list of confusingly similar sounds in the matter of trademarks, culled from Nims, Unfair Competition and Trade Marks, 1947, Vol. 1, will reinforce our view that "SALONPAS" and "LIONPAS" are confusingly similar in sound: "Gold Dust" and "Gold Drop"; "Jantzen" and "Jass-Sea"; "Silver Flash" and "Supper Flash"; "Cascarete" and "Celborite"; "Celluloid" and "Cellonite"; "Chartreuse" and "Charseurs"; "Cutex" and "Cuticlean"; "Hebe" and "Meje"; "Kotex" and "Femetex"; "Zuso" and "Hoo Hoo". Leon Amdur, in his book "Trade-Mark Law and Practice", pp. 419-421, cities, as coming within the purview of the idem sonans rule, "Yusea" and "U-C-A", "Steinway Pianos" and "Steinberg Pianos", and "Seven-Up" and "Lemon-Up". In Co Tiong vs. Director of Patents, this Court unequivocally said that "Celdura" and "Cordura" are confusingly similar in sound; this Court held in Sapolin Co. vs. Balmaceda, 67 Phil. 795 that the name "Lusolin" is an infringement of the trademark "Sapolin", as the sound of the two names is almost the same. (Emphasis supplied)

Certainly, "Big Mac" and "Big Mak" for hamburgers create even greater confusion, not only aurally but also visually.

Indeed, a person cannot distinguish "Big Mac" from "Big Mak" by their sound. When one hears a "Big Mac" or "Big Mak" hamburger advertisement over the radio, one would not know whether the "Mac" or "Mak" ends with a "c" or a "k."

Petitioners' aggressive promotion of the "Big Mac" mark, as borne by their advertisement expenses, has built goodwill and reputation for such mark making it one of the easily recognizable marks in the market today. This increases the likelihood that consumers will mistakenly associate petitioners' hamburgers and business with those of respondents'.

Respondents' inability to explain sufficiently how and why they came to choose "Big Mak" for their hamburger sandwiches indicates their intent to imitate petitioners' "Big Mac" mark. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding, respondents' claim that their "Big Mak" mark was inspired by the first names of respondent Dy's mother (Maxima) and father (Kimsoy) is not credible. As petitioners well noted:

[R]espondents, particularly Respondent Mr. Francis Dy, could have arrived at a more creative choice for a corporate name by using the names of his parents, especially since he was allegedly driven by sentimental reasons. For one, he could have put his father's name ahead of his mother's, as is usually done in this patriarchal society, and derived letters from said names in that order. Or, he could have

taken an equal number of letters (i.e., two) from each name, as is the more usual thing done. Surely, the more plausible reason behind Respondents' choice of the word "M[ak]", especially when taken in conjunction with the word "B[ig]", was their intent to take advantage of Petitioners' xxx "B[ig] M[ac]" trademark, with their alleged sentiment-focused "explanation" merely thought of as a convenient, albeit unavailing, excuse or defense for such an unfair choice of name.67

Absent proof that respondents' adoption of the "Big Mak" mark was due to honest mistake or was fortuitous,68 the inescapable conclusion is that respondents adopted the "Big Mak" mark to "ride on the coattails" of the more established "Big Mac" mark.69 This saves respondents much of the expense in advertising to create market recognition of their mark and hamburgers.70

Thus, we hold that confusion is likely to result in the public mind. We sustain petitioners' claim of trademark infringement.

On the Lack of Proof of Actual Confusion

Petitioners' failure to present proof of actual confusion does not negate their claim of trademark infringement. As noted in American Wire & Cable Co. v. Director of Patents,71 Section 22 requires the less stringent standard of "likelihood of confusion" only. While proof of actual confusion is the best evidence of infringement, its absence is inconsequential.72

On the Issue of Unfair Competition

Section 29 ("Section 29")73 of RA 166 defines unfair competition, thus:

xxxx

Any person who will employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action therefor.

In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:

(a) Any person, who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance

as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose;

(b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or

(c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another. (Emphasis supplied)

The essential elements of an action for unfair competition are (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor.74 The confusing similarity may or may not result from similarity in the marks, but may result from other external factors in the packaging or presentation of the goods. The intent to deceive and defraud may be inferred from the similarity of the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public.75 Actual fraudulent intent need not be shown.76

Unfair competition is broader than trademark infringement and includes passing off goods with or without trademark infringement. Trademark infringement is a form of unfair competition.77 Trademark infringement constitutes unfair competition when there is not merely likelihood of confusion, but also actual or probable deception on the public because of the general appearance of the goods. There can be trademark infringement without unfair competition as when the infringer discloses on the labels containing the mark that he manufactures the goods, thus preventing the public from being deceived that the goods originate from the trademark owner.78

To support their claim of unfair competition, petitioners allege that respondents fraudulently passed off their hamburgers as "Big Mac" hamburgers. Petitioners add that respondents' fraudulent intent can be inferred from the similarity of the marks in question.79

Passing off (or palming off) takes place where the defendant, by imitative devices on the general appearance of the goods, misleads prospective purchasers into buying his merchandise under the impression that they are buying that of his competitors.80 Thus, the defendant gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of his competitor with the intention of deceiving the public that the goods are those of his competitor.

The RTC described the respective marks and the goods of petitioners and respondents in this wise:

The mark "B[ig] M[ac]" is used by plaintiff McDonald's to identify its double decker hamburger sandwich. The packaging material is a styrofoam box with the McDonald's logo and trademark in red with block capital letters printed on it. All letters of the "B[ig] M[ac]" mark are also in red and block capital letters. On the other hand, defendants' "B[ig] M[ak]" script print is in orange with only the letter "B" and "M"

being capitalized and the packaging material is plastic wrapper. xxxx Further, plaintiffs' logo and mascot are the umbrella "M" and "Ronald McDonald's", respectively, compared to the mascot of defendant Corporation which is a chubby boy called "Macky" displayed or printed between the words "Big" and "Mak."81 (Emphasis supplied)

Respondents point to these dissimilarities as proof that they did not give their hamburgers the general appearance of petitioners' "Big Mac" hamburgers.

The dissimilarities in the packaging are minor compared to the stark similarities in the words that give respondents' "Big Mak" hamburgers the general appearance of petitioners' "Big Mac" hamburgers. Section 29(a) expressly provides that the similarity in the general appearance of the goods may be in the "devices or words" used on the wrappings. Respondents have applied on their plastic wrappers and bags almost the same words that petitioners use on their styrofoam box. What attracts the attention of the buying public are the words "Big Mak" which are almost the same, aurally and visually, as the words "Big Mac." The dissimilarities in the material and other devices are insignificant compared to the glaring similarity in the words used in the wrappings.

Section 29(a) also provides that the defendant gives "his goods the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer." Respondents' goods are hamburgers which are also the goods of petitioners. If respondents sold egg sandwiches only instead of hamburger sandwiches, their use of the "Big Mak" mark would not give their goods the general appearance of petitioners' "Big Mac" hamburgers. In such case, there is only trademark infringement but no unfair competition. However, since respondents chose to apply the "Big Mak" mark on hamburgers, just like petitioner's use of the "Big Mac" mark on hamburgers, respondents have obviously clothed their goods with the general appearance of petitioners' goods.

Moreover, there is no notice to the public that the "Big Mak" hamburgers are products of "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." Respondents introduced during the trial plastic wrappers and bags with the words "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." to inform the public of the name of the seller of the hamburgers. However, petitioners introduced during the injunctive hearings plastic wrappers and bags with the "Big Mak" mark without the name "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." Respondents' belated presentation of plastic wrappers and bags bearing the name of "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." as the seller of the hamburgers is an after-thought designed to exculpate them from their unfair business conduct. As earlier stated, we cannot consider respondents' evidence since petitioners' complaint was based on facts existing before and during the injunctive hearings.

Thus, there is actually no notice to the public that the "Big Mak" hamburgers are products of "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc." and not those of petitioners who have the exclusive right to the "Big Mac" mark. This clearly shows respondents' intent to deceive the public. Had respondents' placed a notice on their plastic wrappers and bags that the hamburgers are sold by "L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.", then they could validly claim that they did not intend to deceive the public. In such case, there is only trademark

infringement but no unfair competition.82 Respondents, however, did not give such notice. We hold that as found by the RTC, respondent corporation is liable for unfair competition.

The Remedies Available to Petitioners

Under Section 2383 ("Section 23") in relation to Section 29 of RA 166, a plaintiff who successfully maintains trademark infringement and unfair competition claims is entitled to injunctive and monetary reliefs. Here, the RTC did not err in issuing the injunctive writ of 16 August 1990 (made permanent in its Decision of 5 September 1994) and in ordering the payment of P400,000 actual damages in favor of petitioners. The injunctive writ is indispensable to prevent further acts of infringement by respondent corporation. Also, the amount of actual damages is a reasonable percentage (11.9%) of respondent corporation's gross sales for three (1988-1989 and 1991) of the six years (1984-1990) respondents have used the "Big Mak" mark.84

The RTC also did not err in awarding exemplary damages by way of correction for the public good85 in view of the finding of unfair competition where intent to deceive the public is essential. The award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is also in order.86

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the instant petition. We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 26 November 1999 of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated 11 July 2000 and REINSTATE the Decision dated 5 September 1994 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 137, finding respondent L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

G.R. No. 91332 July 16, 1993

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., BENSON & HEDGES (CANADA), INC., AND FABRIQUES OF TABAC REUNIES, S.A., petitioners vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS AND FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, respondents.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Peña & Nolasco Law Office for petitioners.

Teresita Gandionco-Oledan for private respondent.

MELO, J.:

In the petition before us, petitioners Philip Morris, Inc., Benson and Hedges (Canada), Inc., and Fabriques of Tabac Reunies, S.A., are ascribing whimsical exercise of the faculty conferred upon magistrates by Section 6, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court when respondent Court of Appeals lifted

the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier had issued against Fortune Tobacco Corporation, herein private respondent, from manufacturing and selling "MARK" cigarettes in the local market.

Banking on the thesis that petitioners' respective symbols "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK", also for cigarettes, must be protected against unauthorized appropriation, petitioners twice solicited the ancillary writ in the course the main suit for infringement but the court of origin was unpersuaded.

Before we proceed to the generative facts of the case at bar, it must be emphasized that resolution of the issue on the propriety of lifting the writ of preliminary injunction should not be construed as a prejudgment of the suit below. Aware of the fact that the discussion we are about to enter into involves a mere interlocutory order, a discourse on the aspect infringement must thus be avoided. With these caveat, we shall now shift our attention to the events which spawned the controversy.

As averred in the initial pleading, Philip Morris, Incorporated is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia, United States of America, and does business at 100 Park Avenue, New York, New York, United States of America. The two other plaintiff foreign corporations, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Philip Morris, Inc., are similarly not doing business in the Philippines but are suing on an isolated transaction. As registered owners "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK" per certificates of registration issued by the Philippine Patent Office on April 26, 1973, May 28, 1964, and March 25, 1964, plaintiffs-petitioners asserted that defendant Fortune Tobacco Corporation has no right to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the allegedly identical or confusingly similar trademark "MARK" in contravention of Section 22 of the Trademark Law, and should, therefore, be precluded during the pendency of the case from performing the acts complained of via a preliminary injunction (p. 75, Court of Appeals Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132).

For its part, Fortune Tobacco Corporation admitted petitioners' certificates of registration with the Philippine Patent Office subject to the affirmative and special defense on misjoinder of party plaintiffs. Private respondent alleged further that it has been authorized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the trademark "MARK", and that "MARK" is a common word which cannot be exclusively appropriated (p.158, Court of Appeals Rollo in A.C.-G.R. SP No. 13132). On March 28, 1983, petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction was denied by the Presiding Judge of Branch 166 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed at Pasig, premised upon the following propositions:

Plaintiffs admit in paragraph 2 of the complaint that ". . . they are not doing business in the Philippines and are suing on an isolated transaction . . .". This simply means that they are not engaged in the sale, manufacture, importation, expor[t]ation and advertisement of their cigarette products in the Philippines. With this admission, defendant asks: ". . . how could defendant's "MARK" cigarettes cause the former "irreparable damage" within the territorial limits of the Philippines?" Plaintiffs maintain that since their trademarks are entitled to protection by treaty obligation under Article 2 of the Paris Convention of which the Philippines is a member and ratified by Resolution No. 69 of the Senate of the Philippines and as such, have the force and effect of law under

Section 12, Article XVII of our Constitution and since this is an action for a violation or infringement of a trademark or trade name by defendant, such mere allegation is sufficient even in the absence of proof to support it. To the mind of the Court, precisely, this is the issue in the main case to determine whether or not there has been an invasion of plaintiffs' right of property to such trademark or trade name. This claim of plaintiffs is disputed by defendant in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Answer; hence, this cannot be made a basis for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

There is no dispute that the First Plaintiff is the registered owner of trademar[k] "MARK VII" with Certificate of Registration No. 18723, dated April 26,1973 while the Second Plaintiff is likewise the registered owner of trademark "MARK TEN" under Certificate of Registration No. 11147, dated May 28, 1963 and the Third Plaintiff is a registrant of trademark "LARK" as shown by Certificate of Registration No. 10953 dated March 23, 1964, in addition to a pending application for registration of trademark "MARK VII" filed on November 21, 1980 under Application Serial No. 43243, all in the Philippine Patent Office. In same the manner, defendant has a pending application for registration of the trademark "LARK" cigarettes with the Philippine Patent Office under Application Serial No. 44008. Defendant contends that since plaintiffs are "not doing business in the Philippines" coupled the fact that the Director of Patents has not denied their pending application for registration of its trademark "MARK", the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction is premature. Plaintiffs contend that this act(s) of defendant is but a subterfuge to give semblance of good faith intended to deceive the public and patronizers into buying the products and create the impression that defendant's goods are identical with or come from the same source as plaintiffs' products or that the defendant is a licensee of plaintiffs when in truth and in fact the former is not. But the fact remains that with its pending application, defendant has embarked in the manufacturing, selling, distributing and advertising of "MARK" cigarettes. The question of good faith or bad faith on the part of defendant are matters which are evidentiary in character which have to be proven during the hearing on the merits; hence, until and unless the Director of Patents has denied defendant's application, the Court is of the opinion and so holds that issuance a writ of preliminary injunction would not lie.

There is no question that defendant has been authorized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to manufacture cigarettes bearing the trademark "MARK" (Letter of Ruben B. Ancheta, Acting Commissioner addressed to Fortune Tobacco Corporation dated April 3, 1981, marked as Annex "A", defendant's "OPPOSITION, etc." dated September 24, 1982). However, this authority is qualified . . . that the said brands have been accepted and registered by the Patent Office not later than six (6) months after you have been manufacturing the cigarettes and placed the same in the market." However, this grant ". . . does not give you protection against any person or entity whose rights may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to your indicated trademarks/brands". As aforestated, the registration of defendant's application is still pending in the Philippine Patent Office.

It has been repeatedly held in this jurisdiction as well as in the United States that the right or title of the applicant for injunction remedy must be clear and free from doubt. Because of the disastrous and painful effects of an injunction, Courts should be extremely careful, cautious and conscionable in the exercise of its discretion consistent with justice, equity and fair play.

There is no power the exercise of which is more delicate which requires greater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion, or (which is) more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an injunction; it is the strong arm of equity that never ought to be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. The right must be clear, the injury impending or threatened, so as to be averted only by the protecting preventive process of injunction. (Bonaparte v. Camden, etc. N. Co., 3 F. Cas. No. 1, 617, Baldw. 205, 217.)

Courts of equity constantly decline to lay down any rule which injunction shall be granted or withheld. There is wisdom in this course, for it is impossible to foresee all exigencies of society which may require their aid to protect rights and restrain wrongs. (Merced M. Go v. Freemont, 7 Gal. 317, 321; 68 Am. Dec. 262.)

It is the strong arm of the court; and to render its operation begin and useful, it must be exercised with great discretion, and when necessary requires it. (Attorney-General v. Utica Inc. Co., P. John Ch. (N.Y.) 371.)

Having taken a panoramic view of the position[s] of both parties as viewed from their pleadings, the picture reduced to its minimum size would be this: At the crossroads are the two (2) contending parties, plaintiffs vigorously asserting the rights granted by law, treaty and jurisprudence to restrain defendant in its activities of manufacturing, selling, distributing and advertising its "MARK" cigarettes and now comes defendant who countered and refused to be restrained claiming that it has been authorized temporarily by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under certain conditions to do so as aforestated coupled by its pending application for registration of trademark "MARK" in the Philippine Patent Office. This circumstance in itself has created a dispute between the parties which to the mind of the Court does not warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

It is well-settled principle that courts of equity will refuse an application for the injunctive remedy where the principle of law on which the right to preliminary injunction rests is disputed and will admit of doubt, without a decision of the court of law establishing such principle although satisfied as to what is a correct conclusion of law upon the facts. The fact, however, that there is no such dispute or conflict does not in itself constitute a justifiable ground for the court to refuse an application for the injunctive relief. (Hackensack Impr. Commn. v. New Jersey Midland P. Co., 22 N.J. Eg. 94.)

Hence, the status quo existing between the parties prior to the filing of this case should be maintained. For after all, an injunction, without reference to the parties, should be violent, vicious nor even vindictive. (pp. 338-341, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

In the process of denying petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration of the order denying issuance of the requested writ, the court of origin took cognizance of the certification executed on January 30, 1984 by the Philippine Patent Office attesting to the fact that private respondent's application for registration is still pending appropriate action. Apart from this communication, what

prompted the trial court judge to entertain the idea of prematurity and untimeliness of petitioners' application for a writ of preliminary injunction was the letter from the Bureau of Internal Revenue date February 2, 1984 which reads:

MRS. TERESITA GANDIONGCO OLEDANLegal CounselFortune Tobacco Corporation

Madam:

In connection with your letter dated January 25, 1984, reiterating your query as to whether your label approval automatically expires or becomes null and void after six (6) months if the brand is not accepted and by the patent office, please be informed that no provision in the Tax Code or revenue regulation that requires an applicant to comply with the aforementioned condition order that his label approved will remain valid and existing.

Based on the document you presented, it shows that registration of this particular label still pending resolution by the Patent Office. These being so , you may therefore continue with the production said brand of cigarette until this Office is officially notified that the question of ownership of "MARK" brand is finally resolved.

Very truly yours,

TEODORO D. PAREÑOChief, Manufactured TobaccoTax DivisionTAN-P6531-D2830-A-6

(p. 348, Rollo.)

It appears from the testimony of Atty. Enrique Madarang, Chief of the Trademark Division of the then Philippine Patent Office that Fortune's application for its trademark is still pending before said office (p. 311, Rollo).

Petitioners thereafter cited supervening events which supposedly transpired since March 28, 1983, when the trial court first declined issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, that could alter the results of the case in that Fortune's application had been rejected, nay, barred by the Philippine Patent Office, and that the application had been forfeited by abandonment, but the trial court nonetheless denied the second motion for issuance of the injunctive writ on April 22, 1987, thus:

For all the prolixity of their pleadings and testimonial evidence, the plaintiffs-movants have fallen far short of the legal requisites that would justify the grant of the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for.

For one, they did not even bother to establish by competent evidence that the products supposedly affected adversely by defendant's trademark now subject of an application for registration with the Philippine Patents Office, are in actual use in the Philippines. For another, they concentrated their fire on the alleged abandonment and forfeiture by defendant of said application for registration.

The Court cannot help but take note of the fact that in their complaint plaintiffs included a prayer for issuance preliminary injunction. The petition was duly heard, and thereafter matter was assiduously discussed lengthily and resolved against plaintiffs in a 15-page Order issued by the undersigned's predecessor on March 28, 1983. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied in another well-argued 8 page Order issued on April 5, 1984,, and the matter was made to rest.

However, on the strength of supposed changes in the material facts of this case, plaintiffs came up with the present motion citing therein the said changes which are: that defendant's application had been rejected and barred by the Philippine Patents Office, and that said application has been deemed abandoned and forfeited. But defendant has refiled the same.

Plaintiffs' arguments in support of the present motion appear to be a mere rehash of their stand in the first above-mentioned petition which has already been ruled upon adversely against them. Granting that the alleged changes in the material facts are sufficient grounds for a motion seeking a favorable grant of what has already been denied, this motion just the same cannot prosper.

In the first place there is no proof whatsoever that any of plaintiffs' products which they seek to protect from any adverse effect of the trademark applied for by defendant, is in actual use and available for commercial purposes anywhere in the Philippines. Secondly as shown by plaintiffs' own evidence furnished by no less than the chief of Trademarks Division of the Philippine Patent Office, Atty. Enrique Madarang, the abandonment of an application is of no moment, for the same can always be refiled. He said there is no specific provision in the rules prohibiting such refiling (TSN, November 21, 1986, pp. 60 & 64, Raviera). In fact, according to Madarang, the refiled application of defendant is now pending before the Patents Office. Hence, it appears that the motion has no leg to stand on. (pp. 350-351, Rollo in G. R. No. 91332.)

Confronted with this rebuff, petitioners filed a previous petition for certiorari before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 78141, but the petition was referred to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals initially issued a resolution which set aside the court of origin's order dated April 22, 1987, and granted the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Fortune, its agents, employees, and representatives, from manufacturing, selling, and advertising "MARK" cigarettes. The late Justice Cacdac, speaking for the First Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 13132, remarked:

There is no dispute that petitioners are the registered owners of the trademarks for cigarettes "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK".(Annexes B, C and D, petition). As found and reiterated by the Philippine

Patent Office in two (2) official communications dated April 6, 1983 and January 24, 1984, the trademark "MARK" is "confusingly similar" to the trademarks of petitioners, hence registration was barred under Sec. 4 (d) of Rep. Act. No. 166, as amended (pp. 106, 139, SCA rollo). In a third official communication dated April 8, 1986, the trademark application of private respondent for the "MARK" under Serial No. 44008 filed on February 13, 1981 which was declared abandoned as of February 16, 1986, is now deemed forfeited, there being no revival made pursuant to Rule 98 of the Revised Rules of Practitioners in Trademark Cases." (p. 107, CA rollo). The foregoing documents or communications mentioned by petitioners as "the changes in material facts which occurred after March 28, 1983", are not also questioned by respondents.

Pitted against the petitioners' documentary evidence, respondents pointed to (1) the letter dated January 30, 1979 (p. 137, CA rollo) of Conrado P. Diaz, then Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, temporarily granting the request of private respondent for a permit to manufacture two (2) new brands of cigarettes one of which is brand "MARK" filter-type blend, and (2) the certification dated September 26, 1986 of Cesar G. Sandico, Director of Patents (p. 138, CA rollo) issued upon the written request of private respondents' counsel dated September 17, 1986 attesting that the records of his office would show that the "trademark MARK" for cigarettes is now the subject of a pending application under Serial No. 59872 filed on September 16, 1986.

Private respondent's documentary evidence provides the reasons neutralizing or weakening their probative values. The penultimate paragraph of Commissioner Diaz' letter of authority reads:

Please be informed further that the authority herein granted does not give you protection against any person or entity whose rights may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to your above-named brands/trademark.

while Director Sandico's certification contained similar conditions as follows:

This Certification, however, does not give protection as against any person or entity whose right may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to the aforesaid trademark nor the right to register if contrary to the provisions of the Trademark Law, Rep. Act No. 166 as amended and the Revised Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases.

The temporary permit to manufacture under the trademark "MARK" for cigarettes and the acceptance of the second application filed by private respondent in the height of their dispute in the main case were evidently made subject to the outcome of the said main case or Civil Case No. 47374 of the respondent Court. Thus, the Court has not missed to note the absence of a mention in the Sandico letter of September 26, 1986 of any reference to the pendency of the instant action filed on August 18, 1982. We believe and hold that petitioners have shown a prima facie case for the issuance of the writ of prohibitory injunction for the purposes stated in their complaint and subsequent motions for the issuance of the prohibitory writ. (Buayan Cattle Co. vs. Quintillan, 125 SCRA 276)

The requisites for the granting of preliminary injunction are the existence of the right protected and the facts against which the injunction is to be directed as violative of said right. (Buayan Cattle Co. vs. Quintillan, supra; Ortigas & Co. vs. Ruiz, 148 SCRA 326). It is a writ framed according to the circumstances of the case commanding an act which the Court regards as essential to justice and restraining an act it deems contrary to equity and good conscience (Rosauro vs. Cuneta, 151 SCRA 570). If it is not issued, the defendant may, before final judgment, do or continue the doing of the act which the plaintiff asks the court to restrain, and thus make ineffectual the final judgment rendered afterwards granting the relief sought by the plaintiff (Calo vs. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445). Generally, its grant or denial rests upon the sound discretion of the Court except on a clear case of abuse (Belish Investment & Finance Co. vs. State House, 151 SCRA 636). Petitioners' right of exclusivity to their registered trademarks being clear and beyond question, the respondent court's denial of the prohibitive writ constituted excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse discretion. If the lower court does not grant preliminary injunction, the appellate court may grant the same. (Service Specialists, Inc. vs. Sheriff of Manila, 145 SCRA 139). (pp. 165-167, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

After private respondent Fortune's motion for reconsideration was rejected, a motion to dissolve the disputed writ of preliminary injunction with offer to post a counterbond was submitted which was favorably acted upon by the Court of Appeals, premised on the filing of a sufficient counterbond to answer for whatever perjuicio petitioners may suffer as a result thereof, to wit:

The private respondent seeks to dissolve the preliminary injunction previously granted by this Court with an offer to file a counterbond. It was pointed out in its supplemental motion that lots of workers employed will be laid off as a consequence of the injunction and that the government will stand to lose the amount of specific taxes being paid by the private respondent. The specific taxes being paid is the sum total of P120,120, 295.98 from January to July 1989.

The petitioners argued in their comment that the damages caused by the infringement of their trademark as well as the goodwill it generates are incapable of pecuniary estimation and monetary evaluation and not even the counterbond could adequately compensate for the damages it will incur as a result of the dissolution of the bond. In addition, the petitioner further argued that doing business in the Philippines is not relevant as the injunction pertains to an infringement of a trademark right.

After a thorough re-examination of the issues involved and the arguments advanced by both parties in the offer to file a counterbond and the opposition thereto, WE believe that there are sound and cogent reasons for US to grant the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction by the offer of the private respondent to put up a counterbond to answer for whatever damages the petitioner may suffer as a consequence of the dissolution of the preliminary injunction.

The petitioner will not be prejudiced nor stand to suffer irreparably as a consequence of the lifting of the preliminary injunction considering that they are not actually engaged in the manufacture of the

cigarettes with the trademark in question and the filing of the counterbond will amply answer for such damages.

While the rule is that an offer of a counterbond does not operate to dissolve an injunction previously granted, nevertheless, it is equally true that an injunction could be dissolved only upon good and valid grounds subject to the sound discretion of the court. As WE have maintained the view that there are sound and good reasons to lift the preliminary injunction, the motion to file a counterbond is granted. (pp. 53-54, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

Petitioners, in turn, filed their own motion for re-examination geared towards reimposition of the writ of preliminary injunction but to no avail (p. 55, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332).

Hence, the instant petition casting three aspersions that respondent court gravely abused its discretion tantamount to excess of jurisdiction when:

I. . . . it required, contrary to law and jurisprudence, that in order that petitioners may suffer irreparable injury due to the lifting of the injunction, petitioners should be using actually their registered trademarks in commerce in the Philippines;

II. . . . it lifted the injunction in violation of section 6 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court; and

III. . . . after having found that the trial court had committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction for having refused to issue the writ of injunction to restrain private respondent's acts that are contrary to equity and good conscience, it made a complete about face for legally insufficient grounds and authorized the private respondent to continue performing the very same acts that it had considered contrary to equity and good conscience, thereby ignoring not only the mandates of the Trademark Law, the international commitments of the Philippines, the judicial admission of private respondent that it will have no more right to use the trademark "MARK" after the Director of Patents shall have rejected the application to register it, and the admonitions of the Supreme Court. (pp. 24-25, Petition; pp. 25-26, Rollo.)

To sustain a successful prosecution of their suit for infringement, petitioners, as foreign corporations not engaged in local commerce, rely on section 21-A of the Trademark Law reading as follows:

Sec. 21-A. Any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a mark or trade-name has been registered or assigned under this act may bring an action hereunder for infringement, for unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fifty-nine, as amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings complaint: Provided, That the country of which the said foreign corporation or juristic person is a citizen or in which it is domiciled, by treaty, convention or law, grants a similar privilege to corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines. (As inserted by Sec. 7 of Republic Act No. 638.)

to drive home the point that they are not precluded from initiating a cause of action in the Philippines on account of the principal perception that another entity is pirating their symbol without any lawful authority to do so. Judging from a perusal of the aforequoted Section 21-A, the conclusion reached by petitioners is certainly correct for the proposition in support thereof is embedded in the Philippine legal jurisprudence.

Indeed, it was stressed in General Garments Corporation vs. Director of Patents (41 SCRA 50 [1971]) by then Justice (later Chief Justice) Makalintal that:

Parenthetically, it may be stated that the ruling in the Mentholatum case was subsequently derogated when Congress, purposely to "counteract the effects" of said case, enacted Republic Act No. 638, inserting Section 21-A in the Trademark Law, which allows a foreign corporation or juristic person to bring an action in Philippine courts for infringement of a mark or tradename, for unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, "whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fifty-nine, as amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings complaint."

Petitioner argues that Section 21-A militates against respondent's capacity to maintain a suit for cancellation, since it requires, before a foreign corporation may bring an action, that its trademark or tradename has been registered under the Trademark Law. The argument misses the essential point in the said provision, which is that the foreign corporation is allowed thereunder to sue "whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines" pursuant to the Corporation Law (precisely to counteract the effects of the decision in the Mentholatum case). (at p. 57.)

However, on May, 21, 1984, Section 21-A, the provision under consideration, was qualified by this Court in La Chemise Lacoste S.A. vs. Fernandez (129 SCRA 373 [1984]), to the effect that a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines may have the right to sue before Philippine Courts, but existing adjective axioms require that qualifying circumstances necessary for the assertion of such right should first be affirmatively pleaded (2 Agbayani Commercial Laws of the Philippines, 1991 Ed., p. 598; 4 Martin, Philippine Commercial Laws, Rev. Ed., 1986, p. 381). Indeed, it is not sufficient for a foreign corporation suing under Section 21-A to simply allege its alien origin. Rather, it must additionally allege its personality to sue. Relative to this condition precedent, it may be observed that petitioners were not remiss in averring their personality to lodge a complaint for infringement (p. 75, Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132) especially so when they asserted that the main action for infringement is anchored on an isolated transaction (p. 75, Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132; Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. vs. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., 17 SCRA 1037 (1966), 1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Fifth Rev. Ed., 1988, p. 103).

Another point which petitioners considered to be of significant interest, and which they desire to impress upon us is the protection they enjoy under the Paris Convention of 1965 to which the Philippines is a signatory. Yet, insofar as this discourse is concerned, there is no necessity to treat the

matter with an extensive response because adherence of the Philippines to the 1965 international covenant due to pact sunt servanda had been acknowledged in La Chemise (supra at page 390).

Given these confluence of existing laws amidst the cases involving trademarks, there can be no disagreement to the guiding principle in commercial law that foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines may maintain a cause of action for infringement primarily because of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law when the legal standing to sue is alleged, which petitioners have done in the case at hand.

In assailing the justification arrived at by respondent court when it recalled the writ of preliminary injunction, petitioners are of the impression that actual use of their trademarks in Philippine commercial dealings is not an indispensable element under Article 2 of the Paris Convention in that:

(2) . . . . no condition as to the possession of a domicile or establishment in the country where protection is claimed may be required of persons entitled to the benefits of the Union for the enjoyment of any industrial property of any industrial property rights. (p. 28, Petition; p. 29, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

Yet petitioners' perception along this line is nonetheless resolved by Sections 2 and 2-A of the Trademark Law which speak loudly, about necessity of actual commercial use of the trademark in the local forum:

Sec. 2. What are registrable. — Trademarks, tradenames and service marks owned by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in the Philippines and by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in any foreign country may be registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act; Provided, That said trademarks, tradenames, or service marks are actually in use in commerce and services not less than two months in the Philippines before the time the applications for registration are filed; And provided, further, That the country of which the applicant for registration is a citizen grants by law substantially similar privileges to citizens of the Philippines, and such fact is officially certified, with a certified true copy of the foreign law translated into the English language, by the government of the foreign country to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. (As amended by R.A. No. 865).

Sec. 2-A. Ownership of trademarks, tradenames and service marks; how acquired. — Anyone who lawfully produces or deals in merchandise of any kind or who engages in any lawful business, or who renders any lawful service in commerce, by actual use thereof in manufacture or trade, in business, and in the service rendered, may appropriate to his exclusive use a trademark, a tradename, or a service mark not so appropriated by another, to distinguish his merchandise, business or service from the merchandise, business or service of others. The ownership or possession of a trademark, tradename, service mark, heretofore or hereafter appropriated, as in this section provided, shall be recognized and protected in the same manner and to the same extent as are other property rights known to the law. (As

amended by R.A. No. 638). (Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 203 SCRA 583 [1991], at pp. 589-590; emphasis supplied.)

Following universal acquiescence and comity, our municipal law on trademarks regarding the requirement of actual use in the Philippines must subordinate an international agreement inasmuch as the apparent clash is being decided by a municipal tribunal (Mortensen vs. Peters, Great Britain, High Court of Judiciary of Scotland, 1906, 8 Sessions 93; Paras, International Law and World Organization, 1971 Ed., p. 20). Withal, the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislative enactments (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, Fourth ed., 1974, p. 16).

The aforequoted basic provisions of our Trademark Law, according to Justice Gutierrez, Jr., in Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (203 SCRA 583 [1991]), have been construed in this manner:

A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademark Law is that actual use in commerce in the Philippines is a pre-requisite to the acquisition of ownership over a trademark or a tradename.

xxx xxx xxx

These provisions have been interpreted in Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Actiengesellschaft (27 SCRA 1214 [1969]) in this way:

A rule widely accepted and firmly entrenched because it has come down through the years is that actual use in commerce or business is a prerequisite to the acquisition of the right of ownership over a trademark.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . Adoption alone of a trademark would not give exclusive right thereto. Such right grows out of their actual use. Adoption is not use. One may make advertisements, issue circulars, give out price lists on certain goods; but these alone would not give exclusive right of use. For trademark is a creation of use. The underlying reason for all these is that purchasers have come to understand the mark as indicating the origin of the wares. Flowing from this is the trader's right to protection in the trade he has built up and the goodwill he has accumulated from use of the trademark. . . .

In fact, a prior registrant cannot claim exclusive use of the trademark unless it uses it in commerce.

We rule[d] in Pagasa Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals (118 SCRA 526 [1982]):

3. The Trademark law is very clear. It requires actual commercial use of the mark prior to its registration. There is no dispute that respondent corporation was the first registrant, yet it failed to fully substantiate its claim that it used in trade or business in the Philippines the subject mark; it did not present proof to invest it with exclusive, continuous adoption of the trademark which should consist among others, of considerable sales since its first use. The invoices (Exhibits 7, 7-a, and 8-b) submitted by respondent which were dated way back in 1957 show that the zippers sent to the Philippines were to be used as "samples" and "of no commercial value". The evidence for respondent must be clear, definite and free from inconsistencies. (Sy Ching v. Gaw Lui, 44 SCRA 148-149) "Samples" are not for sale and therefore, the fact of exporting them to the Philippines cannot be considered to be equivalent to the "use" contemplated by the law. Respondent did not expect income from such "samples". There were no receipts to establish sale, and no proof were presented to show that they were subsequently sold in the Philippines. (Pagasa Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 526 [1982]; Emphasis Supplied)

The records show that the petitioner has never conducted any business in the Philippines. It has never promoted its tradename or trademark in the Philippines. It is unknown to Filipino except the very few who may have noticed it while travelling abroad. It has never paid a single centavo of tax to the Philippine government. Under the law, it has no right to the remedy it seeks. (at pp. 589-591.)

In other words, petitioners may have the capacity to sue for infringement irrespective of lack of business activity in the Philippines on account of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law but the question whether they have an exclusive right over their symbol as to justify issuance of the controversial writ will depend on actual use of their trademarks in the Philippines in line with Sections 2 and 2-A of the same law. It is thus incongruous for petitioners to claim that when a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in Philippines files a complaint for infringement, the entity need not be actually using its trademark in commerce in the Philippines. Such a foreign corporation may have the personality to file a suit for infringement but it may not necessarily be entitled to protection due to absence of actual use of the emblem in the local market.

Going back to the first assigned error, we can not help but notice the manner the ascription was framed which carries with it the implied but unwarranted assumption of the existence of petitioners' right to relief. It must be emphasized that this aspect of exclusive dominion to the trademarks, together with the corollary allegation of irreparable injury, has yet to be established by petitioners by the requisite quantum of evidence in civil cases. It cannot be denied that our reluctance to issue a writ of preliminary injunction is due to judicial deference to the lower courts, involved as there is mere interlocutory order (Villarosa vs. Teodoro, Sr., 100 Phil. 25 [1956]). In point of adjective law, the petition has its roots on a remedial measure which is but ancillary to the main action for infringement still pending factual determination before the court of origin. It is virtually needless to stress the obvious reality that critical facts in an infringement case are not before us more so when even Justice Feliciano's opinion observes that "the evidence is scanty" and that petitioners "have yet to submit copies or photographs of their registered marks as used in cigarettes" while private respondent has not, for its part, "submitted the actual labels or packaging materials used in selling its "Mark" cigarettes." Petitioners therefore, may not be permitted to presume a given state of facts on their so called right to the trademarks which could be

subjected to irreparable injury and in the process, suggest the fact of infringement. Such a ploy would practically place the cart ahead of the horse. To our mind, what appears to be the insurmountable barrier to petitioners' portrayal of whimsical exercise of discretion by the Court of Appeals is the well-taken remark of said court that:

The petitioner[s] will not be prejudiced nor stand to suffer irreparably as a consequence of the lifting of the preliminary injunction considering that they are not actually engaged in the manufacture of the cigarettes with the trademark in question and the filing of the counterbond will amply answer for such damages. (p. 54. Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

More telling are the allegations of petitioners in their complaint (p. 319, Rollo G.R. No. 91332) as well as in the very petition filed with this Court (p. 2, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332) indicating that they are not doing business in the Philippines, for these frank representations are inconsistent and incongruent with any pretense of a right which can breached (Article 1431, New Civil Code; Section 4, Rule 129; Section 3, Rule 58, Revised Rules of Court). Indeed, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show that there exists a right to be protected and that the facts against which injunction is directed are violative of said right (Searth Commodities Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 622 [1992]). It may be added in this connection that albeit petitioners are holders of certificate of registration in the Philippines of their symbols as admitted by private respondent, the fact of exclusive ownership cannot be made to rest solely on these documents since dominion over trademarks is not acquired by the mere fact of registration alone and does not perfect a trademark right (Unno Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. General Milling Corporation, 120 SCRA 804 [1983]).

Even if we disregard the candid statements of petitioners anent the absence of business activity here and rely on the remaining statements of the complaint below, still, when these averments are juxtaposed with the denials and propositions of the answer submitted by private respondent, the supposed right of petitioners to the symbol have thereby been controverted. This is not to say, however, that the manner the complaint was traversed by the answer is sufficient to tilt the scales of justice in favor of private respondent. Far from it. What we are simply conveying is another basic tenet in remedial law that before injunctive relief may properly issue, complainant's right or title must be undisputed and demonstrated on the strength of one's own title to such a degree as to unquestionably exclude dark clouds of doubt, rather than on the weakness of the adversary's evidence, inasmuch as the possibility of irreparable damage, without prior proof of transgression of an actual existing right, is no ground for injunction being mere damnum absque injuria (Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, 42 SCRA 577 [1971]; Francisco, Rules of Court, Second ed., 1985, p. 225; 3 Martin, Rules of Court, 1986 ed., p. 82).

On the economic repercussion of this case, we are extremely bothered by the thought of having to participate in throwing into the streets Filipino workers engaged in the manufacture and sale of private respondent's "MARK" cigarettes who might be retrenched and forced to join the ranks of the many unemployed and unproductive as a result of the issuance of a simple writ of preliminary injunction and this, during the pendency of the case before the trial court, not to mention the diminution of tax

revenues represented to be close to a quarter million pesos annually. On the other hand, if the status quo is maintained, there will be no damage that would be suffered by petitioners inasmuch as they are not doing business in the Philippines.

With reference to the second and third issues raised by petitioners on the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction, it cannot be gainsaid that respondent court acted well within its prerogatives under Section 6, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court:

Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of injunction. — The injunction may be refused or, if granted ex parte, may be dissolved, upon the insufficiency of the complaint as shown by the complaint itself, with or without notice to the adverse party. It may also be refused or dissolved on other grounds upon affidavits on the part of the defendants which may be opposed by the plaintiff also by affidavits. It may further be refused or, if granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause great damage to the defendant while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the defendant files a bond in an amount fixed by the judge conditioned that he will pay all damages which the plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction granted is too great, it must be modified.

Under the foregoing rule, injunction may be refused, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on the following instances:

(1) If there is insufficiency of the complaint as shown by the allegations therein. Refusal or dissolution may be granted in this case with or without notice to the adverse party.

(2) If it appears after hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, the issuance or continuance thereof would cause great damage to the defendant, while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer. The defendant, in this case, must file a bond in an amount fixed by the judge conditioned that he will pay all damages which plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction.

(3) On the other grounds upon affidavits on the part of the defendant which may be opposed by the plaintiff also affidavits.

Modification of the injunction may also be ordered by the court if it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction granted is too great. (3 Martin, Rules of Court, 1986 ed., p. 99; Francisco, supra, at p. 268.)

In view of the explicit representation of petitioners in the complaint that they are not engaged in business in the Philippines, it inevitably follows that no conceivable damage can be suffered by them not to mention the foremost consideration heretofore discussed on the absence of their "right" to be

protected. At any rate, and assuming in gratia argumenti that respondent court erroneously lifted the writ it previously issued, the same may be cured by appeal and not in the form of a petition for certiorari (Clark vs. Philippine Ready Mix Concrete Co., 88 Phil. 460 [1951]). Verily, and mindful of the rule that a writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order which is always under the control of the court before final judgment, petitioners' criticism must fall flat on the ground, so to speak, more so when extinction of the previously issued writ can even be made without previous notice to the adverse party and without a hearing (Caluya vs. Ramos, 79 Phil. 640 [1974]; 3 Moran, Rules of Court, 1970 ed., p. 81).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 14, 1989 and November 29, 1989 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.G.R. No. 91332 July 16, 1993

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., BENSON & HEDGES (CANADA), INC., AND FABRIQUES OF TABAC REUNIES, S.A., petitioners vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS AND FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, respondents.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Peña & Nolasco Law Office for petitioners.

Teresita Gandionco-Oledan for private respondent.

MELO, J.:

In the petition before us, petitioners Philip Morris, Inc., Benson and Hedges (Canada), Inc., and Fabriques of Tabac Reunies, S.A., are ascribing whimsical exercise of the faculty conferred upon magistrates by Section 6, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court when respondent Court of Appeals lifted the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier had issued against Fortune Tobacco Corporation, herein private respondent, from manufacturing and selling "MARK" cigarettes in the local market.

Banking on the thesis that petitioners' respective symbols "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK", also for cigarettes, must be protected against unauthorized appropriation, petitioners twice solicited the ancillary writ in the course the main suit for infringement but the court of origin was unpersuaded.

Before we proceed to the generative facts of the case at bar, it must be emphasized that resolution of the issue on the propriety of lifting the writ of preliminary injunction should not be construed as a prejudgment of the suit below. Aware of the fact that the discussion we are about to enter into involves a mere interlocutory order, a discourse on the aspect infringement must thus be avoided. With these caveat, we shall now shift our attention to the events which spawned the controversy.

As averred in the initial pleading, Philip Morris, Incorporated is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia, United States of America, and does business at 100 Park Avenue, New York, New York, United States of America. The two other plaintiff foreign corporations, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Philip Morris, Inc., are similarly not doing business in the Philippines but are suing on an isolated transaction. As registered owners "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK" per certificates of registration issued by the Philippine Patent Office on April 26, 1973, May 28, 1964, and March 25, 1964, plaintiffs-petitioners asserted that defendant Fortune Tobacco Corporation has no right to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the allegedly identical or confusingly similar trademark "MARK" in contravention of Section 22 of the Trademark Law, and should, therefore, be precluded during the pendency of the case from performing the acts complained of via a preliminary injunction (p. 75, Court of Appeals Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132).

For its part, Fortune Tobacco Corporation admitted petitioners' certificates of registration with the Philippine Patent Office subject to the affirmative and special defense on misjoinder of party plaintiffs. Private respondent alleged further that it has been authorized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to manufacture and sell cigarettes bearing the trademark "MARK", and that "MARK" is a common word which cannot be exclusively appropriated (p.158, Court of Appeals Rollo in A.C.-G.R. SP No. 13132). On March 28, 1983, petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction was denied by the Presiding Judge of Branch 166 of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed at Pasig, premised upon the following propositions:

Plaintiffs admit in paragraph 2 of the complaint that ". . . they are not doing business in the Philippines and are suing on an isolated transaction . . .". This simply means that they are not engaged in the sale, manufacture, importation, expor[t]ation and advertisement of their cigarette products in the Philippines. With this admission, defendant asks: ". . . how could defendant's "MARK" cigarettes cause the former "irreparable damage" within the territorial limits of the Philippines?" Plaintiffs maintain that since their trademarks are entitled to protection by treaty obligation under Article 2 of the Paris Convention of which the Philippines is a member and ratified by Resolution No. 69 of the Senate of the Philippines and as such, have the force and effect of law under Section 12, Article XVII of our Constitution and since this is an action for a violation or infringement of a trademark or trade name by defendant, such mere allegation is sufficient even in the absence of proof to support it. To the mind of the Court, precisely, this is the issue in the main case to determine whether or not there has been an invasion of plaintiffs' right of property to such trademark or trade name. This claim of plaintiffs is disputed by defendant in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Answer; hence, this cannot be made a basis for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

There is no dispute that the First Plaintiff is the registered owner of trademar[k] "MARK VII" with Certificate of Registration No. 18723, dated April 26,1973 while the Second Plaintiff is likewise the registered owner of trademark "MARK TEN" under Certificate of Registration No. 11147, dated May 28, 1963 and the Third Plaintiff is a registrant of trademark "LARK" as shown by Certificate of Registration No. 10953 dated March 23, 1964, in addition to a pending application for registration of trademark

"MARK VII" filed on November 21, 1980 under Application Serial No. 43243, all in the Philippine Patent Office. In same the manner, defendant has a pending application for registration of the trademark "LARK" cigarettes with the Philippine Patent Office under Application Serial No. 44008. Defendant contends that since plaintiffs are "not doing business in the Philippines" coupled the fact that the Director of Patents has not denied their pending application for registration of its trademark "MARK", the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction is premature. Plaintiffs contend that this act(s) of defendant is but a subterfuge to give semblance of good faith intended to deceive the public and patronizers into buying the products and create the impression that defendant's goods are identical with or come from the same source as plaintiffs' products or that the defendant is a licensee of plaintiffs when in truth and in fact the former is not. But the fact remains that with its pending application, defendant has embarked in the manufacturing, selling, distributing and advertising of "MARK" cigarettes. The question of good faith or bad faith on the part of defendant are matters which are evidentiary in character which have to be proven during the hearing on the merits; hence, until and unless the Director of Patents has denied defendant's application, the Court is of the opinion and so holds that issuance a writ of preliminary injunction would not lie.

There is no question that defendant has been authorized by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to manufacture cigarettes bearing the trademark "MARK" (Letter of Ruben B. Ancheta, Acting Commissioner addressed to Fortune Tobacco Corporation dated April 3, 1981, marked as Annex "A", defendant's "OPPOSITION, etc." dated September 24, 1982). However, this authority is qualified . . . that the said brands have been accepted and registered by the Patent Office not later than six (6) months after you have been manufacturing the cigarettes and placed the same in the market." However, this grant ". . . does not give you protection against any person or entity whose rights may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to your indicated trademarks/brands". As aforestated, the registration of defendant's application is still pending in the Philippine Patent Office.

It has been repeatedly held in this jurisdiction as well as in the United States that the right or title of the applicant for injunction remedy must be clear and free from doubt. Because of the disastrous and painful effects of an injunction, Courts should be extremely careful, cautious and conscionable in the exercise of its discretion consistent with justice, equity and fair play.

There is no power the exercise of which is more delicate which requires greater caution, deliberation, and sound discretion, or (which is) more dangerous in a doubtful case than the issuing of an injunction; it is the strong arm of equity that never ought to be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages. The right must be clear, the injury impending or threatened, so as to be averted only by the protecting preventive process of injunction. (Bonaparte v. Camden, etc. N. Co., 3 F. Cas. No. 1, 617, Baldw. 205, 217.)

Courts of equity constantly decline to lay down any rule which injunction shall be granted or withheld. There is wisdom in this course, for it is impossible to foresee all exigencies of society which may require their aid to protect rights and restrain wrongs. (Merced M. Go v. Freemont, 7 Gal. 317, 321; 68 Am. Dec. 262.)

It is the strong arm of the court; and to render its operation begin and useful, it must be exercised with great discretion, and when necessary requires it. (Attorney-General v. Utica Inc. Co., P. John Ch. (N.Y.) 371.)

Having taken a panoramic view of the position[s] of both parties as viewed from their pleadings, the picture reduced to its minimum size would be this: At the crossroads are the two (2) contending parties, plaintiffs vigorously asserting the rights granted by law, treaty and jurisprudence to restrain defendant in its activities of manufacturing, selling, distributing and advertising its "MARK" cigarettes and now comes defendant who countered and refused to be restrained claiming that it has been authorized temporarily by the Bureau of Internal Revenue under certain conditions to do so as aforestated coupled by its pending application for registration of trademark "MARK" in the Philippine Patent Office. This circumstance in itself has created a dispute between the parties which to the mind of the Court does not warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

It is well-settled principle that courts of equity will refuse an application for the injunctive remedy where the principle of law on which the right to preliminary injunction rests is disputed and will admit of doubt, without a decision of the court of law establishing such principle although satisfied as to what is a correct conclusion of law upon the facts. The fact, however, that there is no such dispute or conflict does not in itself constitute a justifiable ground for the court to refuse an application for the injunctive relief. (Hackensack Impr. Commn. v. New Jersey Midland P. Co., 22 N.J. Eg. 94.)

Hence, the status quo existing between the parties prior to the filing of this case should be maintained. For after all, an injunction, without reference to the parties, should be violent, vicious nor even vindictive. (pp. 338-341, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

In the process of denying petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration of the order denying issuance of the requested writ, the court of origin took cognizance of the certification executed on January 30, 1984 by the Philippine Patent Office attesting to the fact that private respondent's application for registration is still pending appropriate action. Apart from this communication, what prompted the trial court judge to entertain the idea of prematurity and untimeliness of petitioners' application for a writ of preliminary injunction was the letter from the Bureau of Internal Revenue date February 2, 1984 which reads:

MRS. TERESITA GANDIONGCO OLEDANLegal CounselFortune Tobacco Corporation

Madam:

In connection with your letter dated January 25, 1984, reiterating your query as to whether your label approval automatically expires or becomes null and void after six (6) months if the brand is not accepted

and by the patent office, please be informed that no provision in the Tax Code or revenue regulation that requires an applicant to comply with the aforementioned condition order that his label approved will remain valid and existing.

Based on the document you presented, it shows that registration of this particular label still pending resolution by the Patent Office. These being so , you may therefore continue with the production said brand of cigarette until this Office is officially notified that the question of ownership of "MARK" brand is finally resolved.

Very truly yours,

TEODORO D. PAREÑOChief, Manufactured TobaccoTax DivisionTAN-P6531-D2830-A-6

(p. 348, Rollo.)

It appears from the testimony of Atty. Enrique Madarang, Chief of the Trademark Division of the then Philippine Patent Office that Fortune's application for its trademark is still pending before said office (p. 311, Rollo).

Petitioners thereafter cited supervening events which supposedly transpired since March 28, 1983, when the trial court first declined issuing a writ of preliminary injunction, that could alter the results of the case in that Fortune's application had been rejected, nay, barred by the Philippine Patent Office, and that the application had been forfeited by abandonment, but the trial court nonetheless denied the second motion for issuance of the injunctive writ on April 22, 1987, thus:

For all the prolixity of their pleadings and testimonial evidence, the plaintiffs-movants have fallen far short of the legal requisites that would justify the grant of the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for. For one, they did not even bother to establish by competent evidence that the products supposedly affected adversely by defendant's trademark now subject of an application for registration with the Philippine Patents Office, are in actual use in the Philippines. For another, they concentrated their fire on the alleged abandonment and forfeiture by defendant of said application for registration.

The Court cannot help but take note of the fact that in their complaint plaintiffs included a prayer for issuance preliminary injunction. The petition was duly heard, and thereafter matter was assiduously discussed lengthily and resolved against plaintiffs in a 15-page Order issued by the undersigned's predecessor on March 28, 1983. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied in another well-argued 8 page Order issued on April 5, 1984,, and the matter was made to rest.

However, on the strength of supposed changes in the material facts of this case, plaintiffs came up with the present motion citing therein the said changes which are: that defendant's application had been rejected and barred by the Philippine Patents Office, and that said application has been deemed abandoned and forfeited. But defendant has refiled the same.

Plaintiffs' arguments in support of the present motion appear to be a mere rehash of their stand in the first above-mentioned petition which has already been ruled upon adversely against them. Granting that the alleged changes in the material facts are sufficient grounds for a motion seeking a favorable grant of what has already been denied, this motion just the same cannot prosper.

In the first place there is no proof whatsoever that any of plaintiffs' products which they seek to protect from any adverse effect of the trademark applied for by defendant, is in actual use and available for commercial purposes anywhere in the Philippines. Secondly as shown by plaintiffs' own evidence furnished by no less than the chief of Trademarks Division of the Philippine Patent Office, Atty. Enrique Madarang, the abandonment of an application is of no moment, for the same can always be refiled. He said there is no specific provision in the rules prohibiting such refiling (TSN, November 21, 1986, pp. 60 & 64, Raviera). In fact, according to Madarang, the refiled application of defendant is now pending before the Patents Office. Hence, it appears that the motion has no leg to stand on. (pp. 350-351, Rollo in G. R. No. 91332.)

Confronted with this rebuff, petitioners filed a previous petition for certiorari before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 78141, but the petition was referred to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals initially issued a resolution which set aside the court of origin's order dated April 22, 1987, and granted the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Fortune, its agents, employees, and representatives, from manufacturing, selling, and advertising "MARK" cigarettes. The late Justice Cacdac, speaking for the First Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 13132, remarked:

There is no dispute that petitioners are the registered owners of the trademarks for cigarettes "MARK VII", "MARK TEN", and "LARK".(Annexes B, C and D, petition). As found and reiterated by the Philippine Patent Office in two (2) official communications dated April 6, 1983 and January 24, 1984, the trademark "MARK" is "confusingly similar" to the trademarks of petitioners, hence registration was barred under Sec. 4 (d) of Rep. Act. No. 166, as amended (pp. 106, 139, SCA rollo). In a third official communication dated April 8, 1986, the trademark application of private respondent for the "MARK" under Serial No. 44008 filed on February 13, 1981 which was declared abandoned as of February 16, 1986, is now deemed forfeited, there being no revival made pursuant to Rule 98 of the Revised Rules of Practitioners in Trademark Cases." (p. 107, CA rollo). The foregoing documents or communications mentioned by petitioners as "the changes in material facts which occurred after March 28, 1983", are not also questioned by respondents.

Pitted against the petitioners' documentary evidence, respondents pointed to (1) the letter dated January 30, 1979 (p. 137, CA rollo) of Conrado P. Diaz, then Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, temporarily granting the request of private respondent for a permit to manufacture two (2) new brands of cigarettes one of which is brand "MARK" filter-type blend, and (2) the certification dated September 26, 1986 of Cesar G. Sandico, Director of Patents (p. 138, CA rollo) issued upon the written request of private respondents' counsel dated September 17, 1986 attesting that the records of his office would show that the "trademark MARK" for cigarettes is now the subject of a pending application under Serial No. 59872 filed on September 16, 1986.

Private respondent's documentary evidence provides the reasons neutralizing or weakening their probative values. The penultimate paragraph of Commissioner Diaz' letter of authority reads:

Please be informed further that the authority herein granted does not give you protection against any person or entity whose rights may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to your above-named brands/trademark.

while Director Sandico's certification contained similar conditions as follows:

This Certification, however, does not give protection as against any person or entity whose right may be prejudiced by infringement or unfair competition in relation to the aforesaid trademark nor the right to register if contrary to the provisions of the Trademark Law, Rep. Act No. 166 as amended and the Revised Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases.

The temporary permit to manufacture under the trademark "MARK" for cigarettes and the acceptance of the second application filed by private respondent in the height of their dispute in the main case were evidently made subject to the outcome of the said main case or Civil Case No. 47374 of the respondent Court. Thus, the Court has not missed to note the absence of a mention in the Sandico letter of September 26, 1986 of any reference to the pendency of the instant action filed on August 18, 1982. We believe and hold that petitioners have shown a prima facie case for the issuance of the writ of prohibitory injunction for the purposes stated in their complaint and subsequent motions for the issuance of the prohibitory writ. (Buayan Cattle Co. vs. Quintillan, 125 SCRA 276)

The requisites for the granting of preliminary injunction are the existence of the right protected and the facts against which the injunction is to be directed as violative of said right. (Buayan Cattle Co. vs. Quintillan, supra; Ortigas & Co. vs. Ruiz, 148 SCRA 326). It is a writ framed according to the circumstances of the case commanding an act which the Court regards as essential to justice and restraining an act it deems contrary to equity and good conscience (Rosauro vs. Cuneta, 151 SCRA 570). If it is not issued, the defendant may, before final judgment, do or continue the doing of the act which the plaintiff asks the court to restrain, and thus make ineffectual the final judgment rendered afterwards granting the relief sought by the plaintiff (Calo vs. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445). Generally, its grant or denial rests upon the sound discretion of the Court except on a clear case of abuse (Belish Investment & Finance Co. vs. State House, 151 SCRA 636). Petitioners' right of exclusivity to their registered

trademarks being clear and beyond question, the respondent court's denial of the prohibitive writ constituted excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse discretion. If the lower court does not grant preliminary injunction, the appellate court may grant the same. (Service Specialists, Inc. vs. Sheriff of Manila, 145 SCRA 139). (pp. 165-167, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

After private respondent Fortune's motion for reconsideration was rejected, a motion to dissolve the disputed writ of preliminary injunction with offer to post a counterbond was submitted which was favorably acted upon by the Court of Appeals, premised on the filing of a sufficient counterbond to answer for whatever perjuicio petitioners may suffer as a result thereof, to wit:

The private respondent seeks to dissolve the preliminary injunction previously granted by this Court with an offer to file a counterbond. It was pointed out in its supplemental motion that lots of workers employed will be laid off as a consequence of the injunction and that the government will stand to lose the amount of specific taxes being paid by the private respondent. The specific taxes being paid is the sum total of P120,120, 295.98 from January to July 1989.

The petitioners argued in their comment that the damages caused by the infringement of their trademark as well as the goodwill it generates are incapable of pecuniary estimation and monetary evaluation and not even the counterbond could adequately compensate for the damages it will incur as a result of the dissolution of the bond. In addition, the petitioner further argued that doing business in the Philippines is not relevant as the injunction pertains to an infringement of a trademark right.

After a thorough re-examination of the issues involved and the arguments advanced by both parties in the offer to file a counterbond and the opposition thereto, WE believe that there are sound and cogent reasons for US to grant the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction by the offer of the private respondent to put up a counterbond to answer for whatever damages the petitioner may suffer as a consequence of the dissolution of the preliminary injunction.

The petitioner will not be prejudiced nor stand to suffer irreparably as a consequence of the lifting of the preliminary injunction considering that they are not actually engaged in the manufacture of the cigarettes with the trademark in question and the filing of the counterbond will amply answer for such damages.

While the rule is that an offer of a counterbond does not operate to dissolve an injunction previously granted, nevertheless, it is equally true that an injunction could be dissolved only upon good and valid grounds subject to the sound discretion of the court. As WE have maintained the view that there are sound and good reasons to lift the preliminary injunction, the motion to file a counterbond is granted. (pp. 53-54, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

Petitioners, in turn, filed their own motion for re-examination geared towards reimposition of the writ of preliminary injunction but to no avail (p. 55, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332).

Hence, the instant petition casting three aspersions that respondent court gravely abused its discretion tantamount to excess of jurisdiction when:

I. . . . it required, contrary to law and jurisprudence, that in order that petitioners may suffer irreparable injury due to the lifting of the injunction, petitioners should be using actually their registered trademarks in commerce in the Philippines;

II. . . . it lifted the injunction in violation of section 6 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court; and

III. . . . after having found that the trial court had committed grave abuse of discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction for having refused to issue the writ of injunction to restrain private respondent's acts that are contrary to equity and good conscience, it made a complete about face for legally insufficient grounds and authorized the private respondent to continue performing the very same acts that it had considered contrary to equity and good conscience, thereby ignoring not only the mandates of the Trademark Law, the international commitments of the Philippines, the judicial admission of private respondent that it will have no more right to use the trademark "MARK" after the Director of Patents shall have rejected the application to register it, and the admonitions of the Supreme Court. (pp. 24-25, Petition; pp. 25-26, Rollo.)

To sustain a successful prosecution of their suit for infringement, petitioners, as foreign corporations not engaged in local commerce, rely on section 21-A of the Trademark Law reading as follows:

Sec. 21-A. Any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a mark or trade-name has been registered or assigned under this act may bring an action hereunder for infringement, for unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fifty-nine, as amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings complaint: Provided, That the country of which the said foreign corporation or juristic person is a citizen or in which it is domiciled, by treaty, convention or law, grants a similar privilege to corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines. (As inserted by Sec. 7 of Republic Act No. 638.)

to drive home the point that they are not precluded from initiating a cause of action in the Philippines on account of the principal perception that another entity is pirating their symbol without any lawful authority to do so. Judging from a perusal of the aforequoted Section 21-A, the conclusion reached by petitioners is certainly correct for the proposition in support thereof is embedded in the Philippine legal jurisprudence.

Indeed, it was stressed in General Garments Corporation vs. Director of Patents (41 SCRA 50 [1971]) by then Justice (later Chief Justice) Makalintal that:

Parenthetically, it may be stated that the ruling in the Mentholatum case was subsequently derogated when Congress, purposely to "counteract the effects" of said case, enacted Republic Act No. 638, inserting Section 21-A in the Trademark Law, which allows a foreign corporation or juristic person to bring an action in Philippine courts for infringement of a mark or tradename, for unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, "whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fifty-nine, as amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings complaint."

Petitioner argues that Section 21-A militates against respondent's capacity to maintain a suit for cancellation, since it requires, before a foreign corporation may bring an action, that its trademark or tradename has been registered under the Trademark Law. The argument misses the essential point in the said provision, which is that the foreign corporation is allowed thereunder to sue "whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines" pursuant to the Corporation Law (precisely to counteract the effects of the decision in the Mentholatum case). (at p. 57.)

However, on May, 21, 1984, Section 21-A, the provision under consideration, was qualified by this Court in La Chemise Lacoste S.A. vs. Fernandez (129 SCRA 373 [1984]), to the effect that a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines may have the right to sue before Philippine Courts, but existing adjective axioms require that qualifying circumstances necessary for the assertion of such right should first be affirmatively pleaded (2 Agbayani Commercial Laws of the Philippines, 1991 Ed., p. 598; 4 Martin, Philippine Commercial Laws, Rev. Ed., 1986, p. 381). Indeed, it is not sufficient for a foreign corporation suing under Section 21-A to simply allege its alien origin. Rather, it must additionally allege its personality to sue. Relative to this condition precedent, it may be observed that petitioners were not remiss in averring their personality to lodge a complaint for infringement (p. 75, Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132) especially so when they asserted that the main action for infringement is anchored on an isolated transaction (p. 75, Rollo in AC-G.R. SP No. 13132; Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. vs. Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc., 17 SCRA 1037 (1966), 1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Fifth Rev. Ed., 1988, p. 103).

Another point which petitioners considered to be of significant interest, and which they desire to impress upon us is the protection they enjoy under the Paris Convention of 1965 to which the Philippines is a signatory. Yet, insofar as this discourse is concerned, there is no necessity to treat the matter with an extensive response because adherence of the Philippines to the 1965 international covenant due to pact sunt servanda had been acknowledged in La Chemise (supra at page 390).

Given these confluence of existing laws amidst the cases involving trademarks, there can be no disagreement to the guiding principle in commercial law that foreign corporations not engaged in business in the Philippines may maintain a cause of action for infringement primarily because of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law when the legal standing to sue is alleged, which petitioners have done in the case at hand.

In assailing the justification arrived at by respondent court when it recalled the writ of preliminary injunction, petitioners are of the impression that actual use of their trademarks in Philippine commercial dealings is not an indispensable element under Article 2 of the Paris Convention in that:

(2) . . . . no condition as to the possession of a domicile or establishment in the country where protection is claimed may be required of persons entitled to the benefits of the Union for the enjoyment of any industrial property of any industrial property rights. (p. 28, Petition; p. 29, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

Yet petitioners' perception along this line is nonetheless resolved by Sections 2 and 2-A of the Trademark Law which speak loudly, about necessity of actual commercial use of the trademark in the local forum:

Sec. 2. What are registrable. — Trademarks, tradenames and service marks owned by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in the Philippines and by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in any foreign country may be registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act; Provided, That said trademarks, tradenames, or service marks are actually in use in commerce and services not less than two months in the Philippines before the time the applications for registration are filed; And provided, further, That the country of which the applicant for registration is a citizen grants by law substantially similar privileges to citizens of the Philippines, and such fact is officially certified, with a certified true copy of the foreign law translated into the English language, by the government of the foreign country to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. (As amended by R.A. No. 865).

Sec. 2-A. Ownership of trademarks, tradenames and service marks; how acquired. — Anyone who lawfully produces or deals in merchandise of any kind or who engages in any lawful business, or who renders any lawful service in commerce, by actual use thereof in manufacture or trade, in business, and in the service rendered, may appropriate to his exclusive use a trademark, a tradename, or a service mark not so appropriated by another, to distinguish his merchandise, business or service from the merchandise, business or service of others. The ownership or possession of a trademark, tradename, service mark, heretofore or hereafter appropriated, as in this section provided, shall be recognized and protected in the same manner and to the same extent as are other property rights known to the law. (As amended by R.A. No. 638). (Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 203 SCRA 583 [1991], at pp. 589-590; emphasis supplied.)

Following universal acquiescence and comity, our municipal law on trademarks regarding the requirement of actual use in the Philippines must subordinate an international agreement inasmuch as the apparent clash is being decided by a municipal tribunal (Mortensen vs. Peters, Great Britain, High Court of Judiciary of Scotland, 1906, 8 Sessions 93; Paras, International Law and World Organization, 1971 Ed., p. 20). Withal, the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a

standing equal, not superior, to national legislative enactments (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, Fourth ed., 1974, p. 16).

The aforequoted basic provisions of our Trademark Law, according to Justice Gutierrez, Jr., in Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (203 SCRA 583 [1991]), have been construed in this manner:

A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademark Law is that actual use in commerce in the Philippines is a pre-requisite to the acquisition of ownership over a trademark or a tradename.

xxx xxx xxx

These provisions have been interpreted in Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Actiengesellschaft (27 SCRA 1214 [1969]) in this way:

A rule widely accepted and firmly entrenched because it has come down through the years is that actual use in commerce or business is a prerequisite to the acquisition of the right of ownership over a trademark.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . Adoption alone of a trademark would not give exclusive right thereto. Such right grows out of their actual use. Adoption is not use. One may make advertisements, issue circulars, give out price lists on certain goods; but these alone would not give exclusive right of use. For trademark is a creation of use. The underlying reason for all these is that purchasers have come to understand the mark as indicating the origin of the wares. Flowing from this is the trader's right to protection in the trade he has built up and the goodwill he has accumulated from use of the trademark. . . .

In fact, a prior registrant cannot claim exclusive use of the trademark unless it uses it in commerce.

We rule[d] in Pagasa Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals (118 SCRA 526 [1982]):

3. The Trademark law is very clear. It requires actual commercial use of the mark prior to its registration. There is no dispute that respondent corporation was the first registrant, yet it failed to fully substantiate its claim that it used in trade or business in the Philippines the subject mark; it did not present proof to invest it with exclusive, continuous adoption of the trademark which should consist among others, of considerable sales since its first use. The invoices (Exhibits 7, 7-a, and 8-b) submitted by respondent which were dated way back in 1957 show that the zippers sent to the Philippines were to be used as "samples" and "of no commercial value". The evidence for respondent must be clear, definite and free from inconsistencies. (Sy Ching v. Gaw Lui, 44 SCRA 148-149) "Samples" are not for sale and therefore, the fact of exporting them to the Philippines cannot be considered to be equivalent to the "use" contemplated by the law. Respondent did not expect income from such "samples". There were no

receipts to establish sale, and no proof were presented to show that they were subsequently sold in the Philippines. (Pagasa Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 526 [1982]; Emphasis Supplied)

The records show that the petitioner has never conducted any business in the Philippines. It has never promoted its tradename or trademark in the Philippines. It is unknown to Filipino except the very few who may have noticed it while travelling abroad. It has never paid a single centavo of tax to the Philippine government. Under the law, it has no right to the remedy it seeks. (at pp. 589-591.)

In other words, petitioners may have the capacity to sue for infringement irrespective of lack of business activity in the Philippines on account of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law but the question whether they have an exclusive right over their symbol as to justify issuance of the controversial writ will depend on actual use of their trademarks in the Philippines in line with Sections 2 and 2-A of the same law. It is thus incongruous for petitioners to claim that when a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in Philippines files a complaint for infringement, the entity need not be actually using its trademark in commerce in the Philippines. Such a foreign corporation may have the personality to file a suit for infringement but it may not necessarily be entitled to protection due to absence of actual use of the emblem in the local market.

Going back to the first assigned error, we can not help but notice the manner the ascription was framed which carries with it the implied but unwarranted assumption of the existence of petitioners' right to relief. It must be emphasized that this aspect of exclusive dominion to the trademarks, together with the corollary allegation of irreparable injury, has yet to be established by petitioners by the requisite quantum of evidence in civil cases. It cannot be denied that our reluctance to issue a writ of preliminary injunction is due to judicial deference to the lower courts, involved as there is mere interlocutory order (Villarosa vs. Teodoro, Sr., 100 Phil. 25 [1956]). In point of adjective law, the petition has its roots on a remedial measure which is but ancillary to the main action for infringement still pending factual determination before the court of origin. It is virtually needless to stress the obvious reality that critical facts in an infringement case are not before us more so when even Justice Feliciano's opinion observes that "the evidence is scanty" and that petitioners "have yet to submit copies or photographs of their registered marks as used in cigarettes" while private respondent has not, for its part, "submitted the actual labels or packaging materials used in selling its "Mark" cigarettes." Petitioners therefore, may not be permitted to presume a given state of facts on their so called right to the trademarks which could be subjected to irreparable injury and in the process, suggest the fact of infringement. Such a ploy would practically place the cart ahead of the horse. To our mind, what appears to be the insurmountable barrier to petitioners' portrayal of whimsical exercise of discretion by the Court of Appeals is the well-taken remark of said court that:

The petitioner[s] will not be prejudiced nor stand to suffer irreparably as a consequence of the lifting of the preliminary injunction considering that they are not actually engaged in the manufacture of the cigarettes with the trademark in question and the filing of the counterbond will amply answer for such damages. (p. 54. Rollo in G.R. No. 91332.)

More telling are the allegations of petitioners in their complaint (p. 319, Rollo G.R. No. 91332) as well as in the very petition filed with this Court (p. 2, Rollo in G.R. No. 91332) indicating that they are not doing business in the Philippines, for these frank representations are inconsistent and incongruent with any pretense of a right which can breached (Article 1431, New Civil Code; Section 4, Rule 129; Section 3, Rule 58, Revised Rules of Court). Indeed, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, petitioner must show that there exists a right to be protected and that the facts against which injunction is directed are violative of said right (Searth Commodities Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 622 [1992]). It may be added in this connection that albeit petitioners are holders of certificate of registration in the Philippines of their symbols as admitted by private respondent, the fact of exclusive ownership cannot be made to rest solely on these documents since dominion over trademarks is not acquired by the mere fact of registration alone and does not perfect a trademark right (Unno Commercial Enterprises, Inc. vs. General Milling Corporation, 120 SCRA 804 [1983]).

Even if we disregard the candid statements of petitioners anent the absence of business activity here and rely on the remaining statements of the complaint below, still, when these averments are juxtaposed with the denials and propositions of the answer submitted by private respondent, the supposed right of petitioners to the symbol have thereby been controverted. This is not to say, however, that the manner the complaint was traversed by the answer is sufficient to tilt the scales of justice in favor of private respondent. Far from it. What we are simply conveying is another basic tenet in remedial law that before injunctive relief may properly issue, complainant's right or title must be undisputed and demonstrated on the strength of one's own title to such a degree as to unquestionably exclude dark clouds of doubt, rather than on the weakness of the adversary's evidence, inasmuch as the possibility of irreparable damage, without prior proof of transgression of an actual existing right, is no ground for injunction being mere damnum absque injuria (Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, 42 SCRA 577 [1971]; Francisco, Rules of Court, Second ed., 1985, p. 225; 3 Martin, Rules of Court, 1986 ed., p. 82).

On the economic repercussion of this case, we are extremely bothered by the thought of having to participate in throwing into the streets Filipino workers engaged in the manufacture and sale of private respondent's "MARK" cigarettes who might be retrenched and forced to join the ranks of the many unemployed and unproductive as a result of the issuance of a simple writ of preliminary injunction and this, during the pendency of the case before the trial court, not to mention the diminution of tax revenues represented to be close to a quarter million pesos annually. On the other hand, if the status quo is maintained, there will be no damage that would be suffered by petitioners inasmuch as they are not doing business in the Philippines.

With reference to the second and third issues raised by petitioners on the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction, it cannot be gainsaid that respondent court acted well within its prerogatives under Section 6, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court:

Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of injunction. — The injunction may be refused or, if granted ex parte, may be dissolved, upon the insufficiency of the complaint as shown by

the complaint itself, with or without notice to the adverse party. It may also be refused or dissolved on other grounds upon affidavits on the part of the defendants which may be opposed by the plaintiff also by affidavits. It may further be refused or, if granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause great damage to the defendant while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the defendant files a bond in an amount fixed by the judge conditioned that he will pay all damages which the plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction granted is too great, it must be modified.

Under the foregoing rule, injunction may be refused, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on the following instances:

(1) If there is insufficiency of the complaint as shown by the allegations therein. Refusal or dissolution may be granted in this case with or without notice to the adverse party.

(2) If it appears after hearing that although the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, the issuance or continuance thereof would cause great damage to the defendant, while the plaintiff can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer. The defendant, in this case, must file a bond in an amount fixed by the judge conditioned that he will pay all damages which plaintiff may suffer by the refusal or the dissolution of the injunction.

(3) On the other grounds upon affidavits on the part of the defendant which may be opposed by the plaintiff also affidavits.

Modification of the injunction may also be ordered by the court if it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction granted is too great. (3 Martin, Rules of Court, 1986 ed., p. 99; Francisco, supra, at p. 268.)

In view of the explicit representation of petitioners in the complaint that they are not engaged in business in the Philippines, it inevitably follows that no conceivable damage can be suffered by them not to mention the foremost consideration heretofore discussed on the absence of their "right" to be protected. At any rate, and assuming in gratia argumenti that respondent court erroneously lifted the writ it previously issued, the same may be cured by appeal and not in the form of a petition for certiorari (Clark vs. Philippine Ready Mix Concrete Co., 88 Phil. 460 [1951]). Verily, and mindful of the rule that a writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order which is always under the control of the court before final judgment, petitioners' criticism must fall flat on the ground, so to speak, more so when extinction of the previously issued writ can even be made without previous notice to the adverse party and without a hearing (Caluya vs. Ramos, 79 Phil. 640 [1974]; 3 Moran, Rules of Court, 1970 ed., p. 81).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 14, 1989 and November 29, 1989 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, J., concurs.

Davide, Jr., concurs in the result.

Romero, J. took no part.

G.R. No. 159938 March 31, 2006

SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LTD., SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC., MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL & RESORT, INC., AND KUOK PHILIPPINES PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, vs.DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

GARCIA, J.:

In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners Shangri-La International Hotel Management, Ltd. (SLIHM), et al. assail and seek to set aside the Decision dated May 15, 20031 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 53351 and its Resolution2 of September 15, 2003 which effectively affirmed with modification an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-91-8476, an action for infringement and damages, thereat commenced by respondent Developers Group of Companies, Inc. (DGCI) against the herein petitioners.

The facts:

At the core of the controversy are the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo. Respondent DGCI claims ownership of said mark and logo in the Philippines on the strength of its prior use thereof within the country. As DGCI stresses at every turn, it filed on October 18, 1982 with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) pursuant to Sections 2 and 4 of Republic Act (RA) No. 166,3 as amended, an application for registration covering the subject mark and logo. On May 31, 1983, the BPTTT issued in favor of DGCI the corresponding certificate of registration therefor, i.e., Registration No. 31904. Since then, DGCI started using the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo in its restaurant business.

On the other hand, the Kuok family owns and operates a chain of hotels with interest in hotels and hotel-related transactions since 1969. As far back as 1962, it adopted the name "Shangri-La" as part of the corporate names of all companies organized under the aegis of the Kuok Group of Companies (the Kuok Group). The Kuok Group has used the name "Shangri-La" in all Shangri-La hotels and hotel-related establishments around the world which the Kuok Family owned.

To centralize the operations of all Shangri-la hotels and the ownership of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo, the Kuok Group had incorporated in Hong Kong and Singapore, among other places, several companies that form part of the Shangri-La International Hotel Management Ltd. Group of Companies. EDSA Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc., and Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. were incorporated in the Philippines beginning 1987 to own and operate the two (2) hotels put up by the Kuok Group in Mandaluyong and Makati, Metro Manila.

All hotels owned, operated and managed by the aforesaid SLIHM Group of Companies adopted and used the distinctive lettering of the name "Shangri-La" as part of their trade names.

From the records, it appears that Shangri-La Hotel Singapore commissioned a Singaporean design artist, a certain Mr. William Lee, to conceptualize and design the logo of the Shangri-La hotels.

During the launching of the stylized "S" Logo in February 1975, Mr. Lee gave the following explanation for the logo, to wit:

The logo which is shaped like a "S" represents the uniquely Asean architectural structures as well as keep to the legendary Shangri-la theme with the mountains on top being reflected on waters below and the connecting centre [sic] line serving as the horizon. This logo, which is a bold, striking definitive design, embodies both modernity and sophistication in balance and thought.

Since 1975 and up to the present, the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo have been used consistently and continuously by all Shangri-La hotels and companies in their paraphernalia, such as stationeries, envelopes, business forms, menus, displays and receipts.

The Kuok Group and/or petitioner SLIHM caused the registration of, and in fact registered, the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo in the patent offices in different countries around the world.

On June 21, 1988, the petitioners filed with the BPTTT a petition, docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 3145, praying for the cancellation of the registration of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo issued to respondent DGCI on the ground that the same were illegally and fraudulently obtained and appropriated for the latter's restaurant business. They also filed in the same office Inter Partes Case No. 3529, praying for the registration of the same mark and logo in their own names.

Until 1987 or 1988, the petitioners did not operate any establishment in the Philippines, albeit they advertised their hotels abroad since 1972 in numerous business, news, and/or travel magazines widely circulated around the world, all readily available in Philippine magazines and newsstands. They, too, maintained reservations and booking agents in airline companies, hotel organizations, tour operators, tour promotion organizations, and in other allied fields in the Philippines.

It is principally upon the foregoing factual backdrop that respondent DGCI filed a complaint for Infringement and Damages with the RTC of Quezon City against the herein petitioners SLIHM, Shangri-La Properties, Inc., Makati Shangri-La Hotel & Resort, Inc., and Kuok Philippine Properties, Inc., docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-8476 and eventually raffled to Branch 99 of said court. The complaint with prayer for injunctive relief and damages alleged that DGCI has, for the last eight (8) years, been the prior exclusive user in the Philippines of the mark and logo in question and the registered owner thereof for its restaurant and allied services. As DGCI alleged in its complaint, SLIHM, et al., in promoting and advertising their hotel and other allied projects then under construction in the country, had been using a mark and logo confusingly similar, if not identical, with its mark and "S" logo. Accordingly, DGCI sought to prohibit the petitioners, as defendants a quo, from using the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo in their hotels in the Philippines.

In their Answer with Counterclaim, the petitioners accused DGCI of appropriating and illegally using the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo, adding that the legal and beneficial ownership thereof pertained to SLIHM and that the Kuok Group and its related companies had been using this mark and logo since March 1962 for all their corporate names and affairs. In this regard, they point to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property as affording security and protection to SLIHM's exclusive right to said mark and logo. They further claimed having used, since late 1975, the internationally-known and specially-designed "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo for all the hotels in their hotel chain.

Pending trial on the merits of Civil Case No. Q-91-8476, the trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining the petitioners from using the subject mark and logo. The preliminary injunction issue ultimately reached the Court in G.R. No. 104583 entitled Developers Group of Companies, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. In a decision4 dated March 8, 1993, the Court nullified the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court and directed it to proceed with the main case and decide it with deliberate dispatch.

While trial was in progress, the petitioners filed with the court a motion to suspend proceedings on account of the pendency before the BPTTT of Inter Partes Case No. 3145 for the cancellation of DGCI's certificate of registration. For its part, respondent DGCI filed a similar motion in that case, invoking in this respect the pendency of its infringement case before the trial court. The parties' respective motions to suspend proceedings also reached the Court via their respective petitions in G.R. No. 114802, entitled Developers Group of Companies, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. and G.R. No. 111580, entitled Shangri-La International Hotel Management LTD., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., which were accordingly consolidated.

In a consolidated decision5 dated June 21, 2001, the Court, limiting itself to the core issue of whether, despite the petitioners' institution of Inter Partes Case No. 3145 before the BPTTT, herein respondent DGCI "can file a subsequent action for infringement with the regular courts of justice in connection with the same registered mark," ruled in the affirmative, but nonetheless ordered the BPTTT to suspend further proceedings in said inter partes case and to await the final outcome of the main case.

Meanwhile, trial on the merits of the infringement case proceeded. Presented as DGCI's lone witness was Ramon Syhunliong, President and Chairman of DGCI's Board of Directors. Among other things, this witness testified that:

1. He is a businessman, with interest in lumber, hotel, hospital, trading and restaurant businesses but only the restaurant business bears the name "Shangri-La" and uses the same and the "S-logo" as service marks. The restaurant now known as "Shangri-La Finest Chinese Cuisine" was formerly known as the "Carvajal Restaurant" until December 1982, when respondent took over said restaurant business.

2. He had traveled widely around Asia prior to 1982, and admitted knowing the Shangri-La Hotel in Hong Kong as early as August 1982.

3. The "S-logo" was one of two (2) designs given to him in December 1982, scribbled on a piece of paper by a jeepney signboard artist with an office somewhere in Balintawak. The unnamed artist supposedly produced the two designs after about two or three days from the time he (Syhunliong) gave the idea of the design he had in mind.

4. On October 15, 1982, or before the unknown signboard artist supposedly created the "Shangri-La" and "S" designs, DGCI was incorporated with the primary purpose of "owning or operating, or both, of hotels and restaurants".

5. On October 18, 1982, again prior to the alleged creation date of the mark and logo, DGCI filed an application for trademark registration of the mark "SHANGRI-LA FINEST CHINESE CUISINE & S. Logo" with the BPTTT. On said date, respondent DGCI amended its Articles of Incorporation to reflect the name of its restaurant, known and operating under the style and name of "SHANGRI-LA FINEST CHINESE CUISINE." Respondent DGCI obtained Certificate of Registration No. 31904 for the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo.

Eventually, the trial court, on the postulate that petitioners', more particularly petitioner SLIHM's, use of the mark and logo in dispute constitutes an infringement of DGCI's right thereto, came out with its decision6 on March 8, 1996 rendering judgment for DGCI, as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [respondent DGCI] and against [SLIHM, et al.] -

a) Upholding the validity of the registration of the service mark "Shangri-la" and "S-Logo" in the name of [respondent];

b) Declaring [petitioners'] use of said mark and logo as infringement of [respondent's] right thereto;

c) Ordering [petitioners], their representatives, agents, licensees, assignees and other persons acting under their authority and with their permission, to permanently cease and desist from using and/or continuing to use said mark and logo, or any copy, reproduction or colorable imitation

thereof, in the promotion, advertisement, rendition of their hotel and allied projects and services or in any other manner whatsoever;

d) Ordering [petitioners] to remove said mark and logo from any premises, objects, materials and paraphernalia used by them and/or destroy any and all prints, signs, advertisements or other materials bearing said mark and logo in their possession and/or under their control; and

e) Ordering [petitioners], jointly and severally, to indemnify [respondent] in the amounts of P2,000,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages, P500,000.00 as attorney's fee and expenses of litigation.

Let a copy of this Decision be certified to the Director, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer for his information and appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of Section 25, Republic Act No. 166

Costs against [petitioners].

SO ORDERED. [Words in brackets added.]

Therefrom, the petitioners went on appeal to the CA whereat their recourse was docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 53351.

As stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in its assailed Decision of May 15, 2003,7 affirmed that of the lower court with the modification of deleting the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court predicated its affirmatory action on the strength or interplay of the following premises:

1. Albeit the Kuok Group used the mark and logo since 1962, the evidence presented shows that the bulk use of the tradename was abroad and not in the Philippines (until 1987). Since the Kuok Group does not have proof of actual use in commerce in the Philippines (in accordance with Section 2 of R.A. No. 166), it cannot claim ownership of the mark and logo in accordance with the holding in Kabushi Kaisha Isetan v. IAC8, as reiterated in Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.9

2. On the other hand, respondent has a right to the mark and logo by virtue of its prior use in the Philippines and the issuance of Certificate of Registration No. 31904.

3. The use of the mark or logo in commerce through the bookings made by travel agencies is unavailing since the Kuok Group did not establish any branch or regional office in the Philippines. As it were, the Kuok Group was not engaged in commerce in the Philippines inasmuch as the bookings were made through travel agents not owned, controlled or managed by the Kuok Group.

4. While the Paris Convention protects internationally known marks, R.A. No. 166 still requires use in commerce in the Philippines. Accordingly, and on the premise that international agreements, such as Paris Convention, must yield to a municipal law, the question on the exclusive right over the mark and logo would still depend on actual use in commerce in the Philippines.

Petitioners then moved for a reconsideration, which motion was denied by the CA in its equally assailed Resolution of September 15, 2003.10

As formulated by the petitioners, the issues upon which this case hinges are:

1. Whether the CA erred in finding that respondent had the right to file an application for registration of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo although respondent never had any prior actual commercial use thereof;

2. Whether the CA erred in finding that respondent's supposed use of the identical "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo of the petitioners was not evident bad faith and can actually ripen into ownership, much less registration;

3. Whether the CA erred in overlooking petitioners' widespread prior use of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo in their operations;

4. Whether the CA erred in refusing to consider that petitioners are entitled to protection under both R.A. No. 166, the old trademark law, and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property;

5. Whether the CA erred in holding that SLIHM did not have the right to legally own the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo by virtue of and despite their ownership by the Kuok Group;

6. Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioners' use of the mark and logo constitutes actionable infringement;

7. Whether the CA erred in awarding damages in favor of respondent despite the absence of any evidence to support the same, and in failing to award relief in favor of the petitioners; and

8. Whether petitioners should be prohibited from continuing their use of the mark and logo in question.

There are two preliminary issues, however, that respondent DGCI calls our attention to, namely:

1. Whether the certification against forum-shopping submitted on behalf of the petitioners is sufficient;

2. Whether the issues posed by petitioners are purely factual in nature hence improper for resolution in the instant petition for review on certiorari.

DGCI claims that the present petition for review should be dismissed outright for certain procedural defects, to wit: an insufficient certification against forum shopping and raising pure questions of fact. On both counts, we find the instant petition formally and substantially sound.

In its Comment, respondent alleged that the certification against forum shopping signed by Atty. Lee Benjamin Z. Lerma on behalf and as counsel of the petitioners was insufficient, and that he was not duly authorized to execute such document. Respondent further alleged that since petitioner SLIHM is a foreign entity based in Hong Kong, the Director's Certificate executed by Mr. Madhu Rama Chandra Rao, embodying the board resolution which authorizes Atty. Lerma to act for SLIHM and execute the certification against forum shopping, should contain the authentication by a consular officer of the Philippines in Hong Kong.

In National Steel Corporation v. CA,11 the Court has ruled that the certification on non-forum shopping may be signed, for and in behalf of a corporation, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in such document. The reason for this is that a corporation can only exercise its powers through its board of directors and/or its duly authorized officers and agents. Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose.12

Moreover, Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court concerning the certification against forum shopping does not require any consular certification if the petitioner is a foreign entity. Nonetheless, to banish any lingering doubt, petitioner SLIHM furnished this Court with a consular certification dated October 29, 2003 authenticating the Director's Certificate authorizing Atty. Lerma to execute the certification against forum shopping, together with petitioners' manifestation of February 9, 2004.

Respondent also attacks the present petition as one that raises pure questions of fact. It points out that in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the questions that may properly be inquired into are strictly circumscribed by the express limitation that "the petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth."13 We do not, however, find that the issues involved in this petition consist purely of questions of fact. These issues will be dealt with as we go through the questions raised by the petitioners one by one.

Petitioners' first argument is that the respondent had no right to file an application for registration of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo because it did not have prior actual commercial use thereof. To respondent, such an argument raises a question of fact that was already resolved by the RTC and concurred in by the CA.

First off, all that the RTC found was that respondent was the prior user and registrant of the subject mark and logo in the Philippines. Taken in proper context, the trial court's finding on "prior use" can only be interpreted to mean that respondent used the subject mark and logo in the country before the petitioners did. It cannot be construed as being a factual finding that there was prior use of the mark and logo before registration.

Secondly, the question raised is not purely factual in nature. In the context of this case, it involves resolving whether a certificate of registration of a mark, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions in the issuance thereof, are sufficient to establish prior actual use by the registrant. It further entails answering the question of whether prior actual use is required before there may be a valid registration of a mark.

Under the provisions of the former trademark law, R.A. No. 166, as amended, which was in effect up to December 31, 1997, hence, the law in force at the time of respondent's application for registration of trademark, the root of ownership of a trademark is actual use in commerce. Section 2 of said law requires that before a trademark can be registered, it must have been actually used in commerce and service for not less than two months in the Philippines prior to the filing of an application for its registration.

Registration, without more, does not confer upon the registrant an absolute right to the registered mark. The certificate of registration is merely a prima facie proof that the registrant is the owner of the registered mark or trade name. Evidence of prior and continuous use of the mark or trade name by another can overcome the presumptive ownership of the registrant and may very well entitle the former to be declared owner in an appropriate case.14

Among the effects of registration of a mark, as catalogued by the Court in Lorenzana v. Macagba,15 are:

1. Registration in the Principal Register gives rise to a presumption of the validity of the registration, the registrant's ownership of the mark, and his right to the exclusive use thereof. x x x

2. Registration in the Principal Register is limited to the actual owner of the trademark and proceedings therein pass on the issue of ownership, which may be contested through opposition or interference proceedings, or, after registration, in a petition for cancellation. xxx

[Emphasis supplied]1avvphil.ñet

Ownership of a mark or trade name may be acquired not necessarily by registration but by adoption and use in trade or commerce. As between actual use of a mark without registration, and registration of the mark without actual use thereof, the former prevails over the latter. For a rule widely accepted and firmly entrenched, because it has come down through the years, is that actual use in commerce or business is a pre-requisite to the acquisition of the right of ownership.16

While the present law on trademarks17 has dispensed with the requirement of prior actual use at the time of registration, the law in force at the time of registration must be applied, and thereunder it was held that as a condition precedent to registration of trademark, trade name or service mark, the same must have been in actual use in the Philippines before the filing of the application for registration.18 Trademark is a creation of use and therefore actual use is a pre-requisite to exclusive ownership and its

registration with the Philippine Patent Office is a mere administrative confirmation of the existence of such right.19

By itself, registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. When the applicant is not the owner of the trademark being applied for, he has no right to apply for registration of the same. Registration merely creates a prima facie presumption of the validity of the registration, of the registrant's ownership of the trademark and of the exclusive right to the use thereof.20 Such presumption, just like the presumptive regularity in the performance of official functions, is rebuttable and must give way to evidence to the contrary.

Here, respondent's own witness, Ramon Syhunliong, testified that a jeepney signboard artist allegedly commissioned to create the mark and logo submitted his designs only in December 1982.21 This was two-and-a-half months after the filing of the respondent's trademark application on October 18, 1982 with the BPTTT. It was also only in December 1982 when the respondent's restaurant was opened for business.22 Respondent cannot now claim before the Court that the certificate of registration itself is proof that the two-month prior use requirement was complied with, what with the fact that its very own witness testified otherwise in the trial court. And because at the time (October 18, 1982) the respondent filed its application for trademark registration of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo, respondent was not using these in the Philippines commercially, the registration is void.

Petitioners also argue that the respondent's use of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo was in evident bad faith and cannot therefore ripen into ownership, much less registration. While the respondent is correct in saying that a finding of bad faith is factual, not legal,23 hence beyond the scope of a petition for review, there are, however, noted exceptions thereto. Among these exceptions are:

1. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;24

2. When there is grave abuse of discretion;25

3. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;26

4. When the findings of fact are conflicting;27 and

5. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent.28

And these are naming but a few of the recognized exceptions to the rule.

The CA itself, in its Decision of May 15, 2003, found that the respondent's president and chairman of the board, Ramon Syhunliong, had been a guest at the petitioners' hotel before he caused the registration of the mark and logo, and surmised that he must have copied the idea there:

Did Mr. Ramon Syhunliong, [respondent's] President copy the mark and devise from one of [petitioners'] hotel (Kowloon Shangri-la) abroad? The mere fact that he was a visitor of [petitioners'] hotel abroad at one time (September 27, 1982) establishes [petitioners'] allegation that he got the idea there.29

Yet, in the very next paragraph, despite the preceding admission that the mark and logo must have been copied, the CA tries to make it appear that the adoption of the same mark and logo could have been coincidental:

The word or name "Shangri-la" and the S-logo, are not uncommon. The word "Shangri-la" refers to a (a) remote beautiful imaginary place where life approaches perfection or (b) imaginary mountain land depicted as a utopia in the novel Lost Horizon by James Hilton. The Lost Horizon was a well-read and popular novel written in 1976. It is not impossible that the parties, inspired by the novel, both adopted the mark for their business to conjure [a] place of beauty and pleasure.

The S-logo is, likewise, not unusual. The devise looks like a modified Old English print.30

To jump from a recognition of the fact that the mark and logo must have been copied to a rationalization for the possibility that both the petitioners and the respondent coincidentally chose the same name and logo is not only contradictory, but also manifestly mistaken or absurd. Furthermore, the "S" logo appears nothing like the "Old English" print that the CA makes it out to be, but is obviously a symbol with oriental or Asian overtones. At any rate, it is ludicrous to believe that the parties would come up with the exact same lettering for the word "Shangri-La" and the exact same logo to boot. As correctly observed by the petitioners, to which we are in full accord:

x x x When a trademark copycat adopts the word portion of another's trademark as his own, there may still be some doubt that the adoption is intentional. But if he copies not only the word but also the word's exact font and lettering style and in addition, he copies also the logo portion of the trademark, the slightest doubt vanishes. It is then replaced by the certainty that the adoption was deliberate, malicious and in bad faith.31

It is truly difficult to understand why, of the millions of terms and combination of letters and designs available, the respondent had to choose exactly the same mark and logo as that of the petitioners, if there was no intent to take advantage of the goodwill of petitioners' mark and logo.32

One who has imitated the trademark of another cannot bring an action for infringement, particularly against the true owner of the mark, because he would be coming to court with unclean hands.33 Priority is of no avail to the bad faith plaintiff. Good faith is required in order to ensure that a second user may not merely take advantage of the goodwill established by the true owner.

This point is further bolstered by the fact that under either Section 17 of R.A. No. 166, or Section 151 of R.A. No. 8293, or Article 6bis(3) of the Paris Convention, no time limit is fixed for the cancellation of marks registered or used in bad faith.34 This is precisely why petitioners had filed an inter partes case

before the BPTTT for the cancellation of respondent's registration, the proceedings on which were suspended pending resolution of the instant case.

Respondent DGCI also rebukes the next issue raised by the petitioners as being purely factual in nature, namely, whether the CA erred in overlooking petitioners' widespread prior use of the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo in their operations. The question, however, is not whether there had been widespread prior use, which would have been factual, but whether that prior use entitles the petitioners to use the mark and logo in the Philippines. This is clearly a question which is legal in nature.

It has already been established in the two courts below, and admitted by the respondent's president himself, that petitioners had prior widespread use of the mark and logo abroad:

There is, to be sure, an impressive mass of proof that petitioner SLIHM and its related companies abroad used the name and logo for one purpose or another x x x.35 [Emphasis supplied]

In respondent's own words, "[T]he Court of Appeals did note petitioners' use of the mark and logo but held that such use did not confer to them ownership or exclusive right to use them in the Philippines."36 To petitioners' mind, it was error for the CA to rule that their worldwide use of the mark and logo in dispute could not have conferred upon them any right thereto. Again, this is a legal question which is well worth delving into.

R.A. No. 166, as amended, under which this case was heard and decided provides:

Section 2. What are registrable. - Trademarks, trade names and service marks owned by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in the Philippines and by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in any foreign country may be registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided, That said trademarks trade names, or service marks are actually in use in commerce and services not less than two months in the Philippines before the time the applications for registration are filed: And provided, further, That the country of which the applicant for registration is a citizen grants by law substantially similar privileges to citizens of the Philippines, and such fact is officially certified, with a certified true copy of the foreign law translated into the English language, by the government of the foreign country to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.

Section 2-A. Ownership of trademarks, trade names and service marks; how acquired. - Anyone who lawfully produces or deals in merchandise of any kind or who engages in any lawful business, or who renders any lawful service in commerce, by actual use thereof in manufacture or trade, in business, and in the service rendered, may appropriate to his exclusive use a trademark, a trade name, or a service -mark not so appropriated by another, to distinguish his merchandise, business or service from the merchandise, business or services of others. The ownership or possession of a trademark, trade name, service mark, heretofore or hereafter appropriated, as in this section provided, shall be recognized and protected in the same manner and to the same extent as are other property rights known to this law. [Emphasis supplied]

Admittedly, the CA was not amiss in saying that the law requires the actual use in commerce of the said trade name and "S" logo in the Philippines. Hence, consistent with its finding that the bulk of the petitioners' evidence shows that the alleged use of the Shangri-La trade name was done abroad and not in the Philippines, it is understandable for that court to rule in respondent's favor. Unfortunately, however, what the CA failed to perceive is that there is a crucial difference between the aforequoted Section 2 and Section 2-A of R.A. No. 166. For, while Section 2 provides for what is registrable, Section 2-A, on the other hand, sets out how ownership is acquired. These are two distinct concepts.

Under Section 2, in order to register a trademark, one must be the owner thereof and must have actually used the mark in commerce in the Philippines for 2 months prior to the application for registration. Since "ownership" of the trademark is required for registration, Section 2-A of the same law sets out to define how one goes about acquiring ownership thereof. Under Section 2-A, it is clear that actual use in commerce is also the test of ownership but the provision went further by saying that the mark must not have been so appropriated by another. Additionally, it is significant to note that Section 2-A does not require that the actual use of a trademark must be within the Philippines. Hence, under R.A. No. 166, as amended, one may be an owner of a mark due to actual use thereof but not yet have the right to register such ownership here due to failure to use it within the Philippines for two months.

While the petitioners may not have qualified under Section 2 of R.A. No. 166 as a registrant, neither did respondent DGCI, since the latter also failed to fulfill the 2-month actual use requirement. What is worse, DGCI was not even the owner of the mark. For it to have been the owner, the mark must not have been already appropriated (i.e., used) by someone else. At the time of respondent DGCI's registration of the mark, the same was already being used by the petitioners, albeit abroad, of which DGCI's president was fully aware.

It is respondent's contention that since the petitioners adopted the "Shangri-La" mark and "S" logo as a mere corporate name or as the name of their hotels, instead of using them as a trademark or service mark, then such name and logo are not trademarks. The two concepts of corporate name or business name and trademark or service mark, are not mutually exclusive. It is common, indeed likely, that the name of a corporation or business is also a trade name, trademark or service mark. Section 38 of R.A. No. 166 defines the terms as follows:

Sec. 38. Words and terms defined and construed - In the construction of this Act, unless the contrary is plainly apparent from the context - The term "trade name" includes individual names and surnames, firm names, trade names, devices or words used by manufacturers, industrialists, merchants, agriculturists, and others to identify their business, vocations or occupations; the names or titles lawfully adopted and used by natural or juridical persons, unions, and any manufacturing, industrial, commercial, agricultural or other organizations engaged in trade or commerce.

The term "trade mark" includes any word, name, symbol, emblem, sign or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured, sold or dealt in by others.

The term "service mark" means a mark used in the sale or advertising of services to identify the services of one person and distinguish them from the services of others and includes without limitation the marks, names, symbols, titles, designations, slogans, character names, and distinctive features of radio or other advertising. [Emphasis supplied]

Clearly, from the broad definitions quoted above, the petitioners can be considered as having used the "Shangri-La" name and "S" logo as a tradename and service mark.

The new Intellectual Property Code (IPC), Republic Act No. 8293, undoubtedly shows the firm resolve of the Philippines to observe and follow the Paris Convention by incorporating the relevant portions of the Convention such that persons who may question a mark (that is, oppose registration, petition for the cancellation thereof, sue for unfair competition) include persons whose internationally well-known mark, whether or not registered, is

identical with or confusingly similar to or constitutes a translation of a mark that is sought to be registered or is actually registered.37

However, while the Philippines was already a signatory to the Paris Convention, the IPC only took effect on January 1, 1988, and in the absence of a retroactivity clause, R.A. No. 166 still applies.38 Under the prevailing law and jurisprudence at the time, the CA had not erred in ruling that:

The Paris Convention mandates that protection should be afforded to internationally known marks as signatory to the Paris Convention, without regard as to whether the foreign corporation is registered, licensed or doing business in the Philippines. It goes without saying that the same runs afoul to Republic Act No. 166, which requires the actual use in commerce in the Philippines of the subject mark or devise. The apparent conflict between the two (2) was settled by the Supreme Court in this wise -

"Following universal acquiescence and comity, our municipal law on trademarks regarding the requirement of actual use in the Philippines must subordinate an international agreement inasmuch as the apparent clash is being decided by a municipal tribunal (Mortensen vs. Peters, Great Britain, High Court of Judiciary of Scotland, 1906, 8 Sessions 93; Paras, International Law and World Organization, 1971 Ed., p. 20). Withal, the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislative enactments (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, Fourth ed., 1974, p. 16)."39 [Emphasis supplied]

Consequently, the petitioners cannot claim protection under the Paris Convention. Nevertheless, with the double infirmity of lack of two-month prior use, as well as bad faith in the respondent's registration of the mark, it is evident that the petitioners cannot be guilty of infringement. It would be a great injustice to adjudge the petitioners guilty of infringing a mark when they are actually the originator and creator thereof.

Nor can the petitioners' separate personalities from their mother corporation be an obstacle in the enforcement of their rights as part of the Kuok Group of Companies and as official repository, manager and operator of the subject mark and logo. Besides, R.A. No. 166 did not require the party seeking relief to be the owner of the mark but "any person who believes that he is or will be damaged by the registration of a mark or trade name."40

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated May 15, 2003 and September 15, 2003, respectively, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dated March 8, 1996 are hereby SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the complaint for infringement in Civil Case No. Q-91-8476 is ordered DISMISSED.

G.R. No. 103543 July 5, 1993

ASIA BREWERY, INC., petitioner, vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents.

Abad Santos & Associates and Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for petitioner.

Roco, Bunag, Kapunan Law Office for private respondent.

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

On September 15, 1988, San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a complaint against Asia Brewery Inc. (ABI) for infringement of trademark and unfair competition on account of the latter's BEER PALE PILSEN or BEER NA BEER product which has been competing with SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN for a share of the local beer market. (San Miguel Corporation vs. Asia Brewery Inc., Civ. Case. No. 56390, RTC Branch 166, Pasig, Metro Manila.).

On August 27, 1990, a decision was rendered by the trial Court, presided over by Judge Jesus O. Bersamira, dismissing SMC's complaint because ABI "has not committed trademark infringement or unfair competition against" SMC (p. 189, Rollo).

SMC appealed to the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. CV No. 28104). On September 30, 1991, the Court of Appeals (Sixth Division composed of Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr., chairman and ponente, and Justices Venancio D. Aldecoa Jr. and Filemon H. Mendoza, as members) reversed the trial court. The dispositive part of the decision reads as follows:

In the light of the foregoing analysis and under the plain language of the applicable rule and principle on the matter, We find the defendant Asia Brewery Incorporated GUILTY of infringement of trademark and unfair competition. The decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED, and a new judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:

(1) The defendant Asia Brewery Inc. its officers, agents, servants and employees are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from manufacturing, putting up, selling, advertising, offering or announcing for sale, or supplying Beer Pale Pilsen, or any similar preparation, manufacture or beer in bottles and under labels substantially identical with or like the said bottles and labels of plaintiff San Miguel Corporation employed for that purpose, or substantially identical with or like the bottles and labels now employed by the defendant for that purpose, or in bottles or under labels which are calculated to deceive purchasers and consumers into the belief that the beer is the product of the plaintiff or which will enable others to substitute, sell or palm off the said beer of the defendant as and for the beer of the plaintiff-complainant.

(2) The defendant Asia Brewery Inc. is hereby ordered to render an accounting and pay the San Miguel Corporation double any and all the payments derived by defendant from operations of its business and the sale of goods bearing the mark "Beer Pale Pilsen" estimated at approximately Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00); to recall all its products bearing the mark "Beer Pale Pilsen" from its retailers and deliver these as well as all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and advertisements bearing the infringing mark and all plates, molds, materials and other means of making the same to the Court authorized to execute this judgment for destruction.

(3) The defendant is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as moral damages and Half a Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) by way of exemplary damages.

(4) The defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of P250,000.00 plus costs to this suit. (p. 90, Rollo.)

Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by ABI, the above dispositive part of the decision, was modified by the separate opinions of the Special Sixth Division 1 so that it should read thus:

In the light of the foregoing analysis and under the plain language of the applicable rule and principle on the matter, We find the defendant Asia Brewery Incorporated GUILTY of infringement of trademark and unfair competition. The decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED, and a new judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant as follows:

(1) The defendant Asia Brewery Inc., its officers, agents, servants and employees are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from manufacturing, putting up, selling, advertising, offering or announcing for sale, or supplying Beer Pale Pilsen, or any similar preparation, manufacture or beer in bottles and under labels substantially identical with or like the said bottles and labels of plaintiff San Miguel Corporation employed for that purpose, or substantially identical with or like the bottles and labels now employed by the defendant for that purpose, or in bottles or under labels which are calculated to deceive purchasers and consumers into the belief that the beer if the product of the plaintiff or which will enable others to substitute, sell or palm off the said beer of the defendant as and for the beer of the plaintiff-complainant.

(2) The defendant Asia Brewery Inc. is hereby ordered 2 to recall all its products bearing the mark Beer Pale Pilsen from its retailers and deliver these as well as all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and advertisements bearing the infringing mark and all plates, molds, materials and other means of making the same to the Court authorized to execute this judgment for destruction.

(3) The defendant is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as moral damages and Half a Million Pesos (P500,000.00) by way of exemplary damages.

(4) The defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of P250,000.00 plus costs of this suit.

In due time, ABI appealed to this Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The lone issue in this appeal is whether ABI infringes SMC's trademark: San Miguel Pale Pilsen with Rectangular Hops and Malt Design, and thereby commits unfair competition against the latter. It is a factual issue (Phil. Nut Industry Inc. v. Standard Brands Inc., 65 SCRA 575) and as a general rule, the findings of the Court of Appeals upon factual questions are conclusive and ought not to be disturbed by us. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, and they are:

(1) When the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;

(2) When the inference of the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible;

(3) Where there is grave abuse of discretion;

(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and the same are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;

(6) When the findings of said court are contrary to those of the trial court;

(7) When the findings are without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(8) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and

(9) When the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted on record. (Reynolds Philippine Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 220, 223 citing, Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 597; Manlapaz vs. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 238; Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593, 609; Guita vs. CA, 139 SCRA 576; Casanayan vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 333, 336; also Apex Investment and Financing Corp. vs. IAC, 166 SCRA 458 [citing Tolentino vs. De Jesus, 56 SCRA 167; Carolina Industries, Inc. vs. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., 97 SCRA 734; Manero vs. CA, 102 SCRA 817; and Moran, Jr. vs. CA, 133 SCRA 88].)

Under any of these exceptions, the Court has to review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the record (Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. IAC, 191 SCRA 411, 420.) Where findings of the Court of Appeals and trial court are contrary to each other, the Supreme Court may scrutinize the evidence on record. (Cruz vs. CA, 129 SCRA 222, 227.)

The present case is one of the exceptions because there is no concurrence between the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the lone factual issue of whether ABI, by manufacturing and selling its BEER PALE PILSEN in amber colored steinie bottles of 320 ml. capacity with a white painted rectangular label has committed trademark infringement and unfair competition against SMC.

Infringement of trademark is a form of unfair competition (Clarke vs. Manila Candy Co., 36 Phil. 100, 106). Sec. 22 of Republic Act No. 166, otherwise known as the Trademark Law, defines what constitutes infringement:

Sec. 22. Infringement, what constitutes. — Any person who shall use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such mark or trade-name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services, shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided. (Emphasis supplied.)

This definition implies that only registered trade marks, trade names and service marks are protected against infringement or unauthorized use by another or others. The use of someone else's registered trademark, trade name or service mark is unauthorized, hence, actionable, if it is done "without the consent of the registrant." (Ibid.)

The registered trademark of SMC for its pale pilsen beer is:

San Miguel Pale Pilsen With Rectangular Hops and Malt Design. (Philippine Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer Trademark Certificate of Registration No. 36103, dated 23 Oct. 1986, (p. 174, Rollo.)

As described by the trial court in its decision (Page 177, Rollo):

. . . . a rectangular design [is] bordered by what appears to be minute grains arranged in rows of three in which there appear in each corner hop designs. At the top is a phrase written in small print "Reg. Phil. Pat. Off." and at the bottom "Net Contents: 320 Ml." The dominant feature is the phrase "San Miguel" written horizontally at the upper portion. Below are the words "Pale Pilsen" written diagonally across the middle of the rectangular design. In between is a coat of arms and the phrase "Expertly Brewed." The "S" in "San" and the "M" of "Miguel," "P" of "Pale" and "Pilsen" are written in Gothic letters with fine strokes of serifs, the kind that first appeared in the 1780s in England and used for printing German as distinguished from Roman and Italic. Below "Pale Pilsen" is the statement "And Bottled by" (first line, "San Miguel Brewery" (second line), and "Philippines" (third line). (p. 177, Rollo; Emphasis supplied.)

On the other hand, ABI's trademark, as described by the trial court, consists of:

. . . a rectangular design bordered by what appear to be buds of flowers with leaves. The dominant feature is "Beer" written across the upper portion of the rectangular design. The phrase "Pale Pilsen" appears immediately below in smaller block letters. To the left is a hop design and to the right, written in small prints, is the phrase "Net Contents 320 ml." Immediately below "Pale Pilsen" is the statement written in three lines "Especially brewed and bottled by" (first line), "Asia Brewery Incorporated" (second line), and "Philippines" (third line), (p. 177, Rollo; Emphasis supplied.)

Does ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN label or "design" infringe upon SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN WITH RECTANGULAR MALT AND HOPS DESIGN? The answer is "No."

Infringement is determined by the "test of dominancy" rather than by differences or variations in the details of one trademark and of another. The rule was formulated in Co Tiong Sa vs. Director of Patents, 95 Phil. 1, 4 (1954); reiterated in Lim Hoa vs. Director of Patents, 100 Phil. 214, 216-217 (1956), thus:

It has been consistently held that the question of infringement of a trademark is to be determined by the test of dominancy. Similarity in size, form and color, while relevant, is not conclusive. If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another, and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor it is necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. [C. Neilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent Brewing Co., 191 F., 489, 495, citing Eagle White Lead Co., vs. Pflugh (CC) 180 Fed. 579].

The question at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether the use of the marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistakes in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers. (Auburn Rubber Corporation vs. Honover Rubber Co., 107 F. 2d 588; . . . .) (Emphasis supplied.)

In Forbes, Munn & Co. (Ltd.) vs. Ang San To, 40 Phil. 272, 275, the test was similarity or "resemblance between the two (trademarks) such as would be likely to cause the one mark to be mistaken for the other. . . . [But] this is not such similitude as amounts to identity."

In Phil. Nut Industry Inc. vs. Standard Brands Inc., 65 SCRA 575, the court was more specific: the test is "similarity in the dominant features of the trademarks."

What are the dominant features of the competing trademarks before us?

There is hardly any dispute that the dominant feature of SMC's trademark is the name of the product: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, written in white Gothic letters with elaborate serifs at the beginning and end of the letters "S" and "M" on an amber background across the upper portion of the rectangular design.

On the other hand, the dominant feature of ABI's trademark is the name: BEER PALE PILSEN, with the word "Beer" written in large amber letters, larger than any of the letters found in the SMC label.

The trial court perceptively observed that the word "BEER" does not appear in SMC's trademark, just as the words "SAN MIGUEL" do not appear in ABI's trademark. Hence, there is absolutely no similarity in the dominant features of both trademarks.

Neither in sound, spelling or appearance can BEER PALE PILSEN be said to be confusingly similar to SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. No one who purchases BEER PALE PILSEN can possibly be deceived that it is SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. No evidence whatsoever was presented by SMC proving otherwise.

Besides the dissimilarity in their names, the following other dissimilarities in the trade dress or appearance of the competing products abound:

(1) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle has a slender tapered neck.

The BEER PALE PILSEN bottle has a fat, bulging neck.

(2) The words "pale pilsen" on SMC's label are printed in bold and laced letters along a diagonal band, whereas the words "pale pilsen" on ABI's bottle are half the size and printed in slender block letters on a straight horizontal band. (See Exhibit "8-a".).

(3) The names of the manufacturers are prominently printed on their respective bottles.

SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN is "Bottled by the San Miguel Brewery, Philippines," whereas BEER PALE PILSEN is "Especially brewed and bottled by Asia Brewery Incorporated, Philippines."

(4) On the back of ABI's bottle is printed in big, bold letters, under a row of flower buds and leaves, its copyrighted slogan:

"BEER NA BEER!"

Whereas SMC's bottle carries no slogan.

(5) The back of the SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle carries the SMC logo, whereas the BEER PALE PILSEN bottle has no logo.

(6) The SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle cap is stamped with a coat of arms and the words "San Miguel Brewery Philippines" encircling the same.

The BEER PALE PILSEN bottle cap is stamped with the name "BEER" in the center, surrounded by the words "Asia Brewery Incorporated Philippines."

(7) Finally, there is a substantial price difference between BEER PALE PILSEN (currently at P4.25 per bottle) and SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN (currently at P7.00 per bottle). One who pays only P4.25 for a bottle of beer cannot expect to receive San Miguel Pale Pilsen from the storekeeper or bartender.

The fact that the words pale pilsen are part of ABI's trademark does not constitute an infringement of SMC's trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, for "pale pilsen" are generic words descriptive of the color ("pale"), of a type of beer ("pilsen"), which is a light bohemian beer with a strong hops flavor that originated in the City of Pilsen in Czechoslovakia and became famous in the Middle Ages. (Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Edited by Philip Babcock Gove. Springfield, Mass.: G & C Merriam Co., [c] 1976, page 1716.) "Pilsen" is a "primarily geographically descriptive word," (Sec. 4, subpar. [e] Republic Act No. 166, as inserted by Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 638) hence, non-registerable and not appropriable by any beer manufacturer. The Trademark Law provides:

Sec. 4. . . .. The owner of trade-mark, trade-name or service-mark used to distinguish his goods, business or services from the goods, business or services of others shall have the right to register the same [on the principal register], unless it:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) Consists of a mark or trade-name which, when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, or when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant is primarily

geographically descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, or is primarily merely a surname." (Emphasis supplied.)

The words "pale pilsen" may not be appropriated by SMC for its exclusive use even if they are part of its registered trademark: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, any more than such descriptive words as "evaporated milk," "tomato ketchup," "cheddar cheese," "corn flakes" and "cooking oil" may be appropriated by any single manufacturer of these food products, for no other reason than that he was the first to use them in his registered trademark. In Masso Hermanos, S.A. vs. Director of Patents, 94 Phil. 136, 139 (1953), it was held that a dealer in shoes cannot register "Leather Shoes" as his trademark because that would be merely descriptive and it would be unjust to deprive other dealers in leather shoes of the right to use the same words with reference to their merchandise. No one may appropriate generic or descriptive words. They belong to the public domain (Ong Ai Gui vs. Director of Patents, 96 Phil. 673, 676 [1955]):

A word or a combination of words which is merely descriptive of an article of trade, or of its composition, characteristics, or qualities, cannot be appropriated and protected as a trademark to the exclusion of its use by others. . . . inasmuch as all persons have an equal right to produce and vend similar articles, they also have the right to describe them properly and to use any appropriate language or words for that purpose, and no person can appropriate to himself exclusively any word or expression, properly descriptive of the article, its qualities, ingredients or characteristics, and thus limit other persons in the use of language appropriate to the description of their manufactures, the right to the use of such language being common to all. This rule excluding descriptive terms has also been held to apply to trade-names. As to whether words employed fall within this prohibition, it is said that the true test is not whether they are exhaustively descriptive of the article designated, but whether in themselves, and as they are commonly used by those who understand their meaning, they are reasonably indicative and descriptive of the thing intended. If they are thus descriptive, and not arbitrary, they cannot be appropriated from general use and become the exclusive property of anyone. (52 Am. Jur. 542-543.)

. . . . Others may use the same or similar descriptive word in connection with their own wares, provided they take proper steps to prevent the public being deceived. (Richmond Remedies Co. vs. Dr. Miles Medical Co., 16 E. [2d] 598.)

. . . . A descriptive word may be admittedly distinctive, especially if the user is the first creator of the article. It will, however, be denied protection, not because it lacks distinctiveness, but rather because others are equally entitled to its use. (2 Callman. Unfair Competition and Trademarks, pp. 869-870.)" (Emphasis supplied.)

The circumstance that the manufacturer of BEER PALE PILSEN, Asia Brewery Incorporated, has printed its name all over the bottle of its beer product: on the label, on the back of the bottle, as well as on the bottle cap, disproves SMC's charge that ABI dishonestly and fraudulently intends to palm off its BEER PALE PILSEN as SMC's product. In view of the visible differences between the two products, the Court believes it is quite unlikely that a customer of average intelligence would mistake a bottle of BEER PALE PILSEN for SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN.

The fact that BEER PALE PILSEN like SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN is bottled in amber-colored steinie bottles of 320 ml. capacity and is also advertised in print, broadcast, and television media, does not necessarily constitute unfair competition.

Unfair competition is the employment of deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which a person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services, for those of another who has already established goodwill for his similar goods, business or services, or any acts calculated to produce the same result. (Sec. 29, Republic Act No. 166, as amended.) The law further enumerates the more common ways of committing unfair competition, thus:

Sec. 29. . . .

In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:

(a) Any person, who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose.

(b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or

(c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another.

In this case, the question to be determined is whether ABI is using a name or mark for its beer that has previously come to designate SMC's beer, or whether ABI is passing off its BEER PALE PILSEN as SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN.

. . ..The universal test question is whether the public is likely to be deceived. Nothing less than conduct tending to pass off one man's goods or business as that of another will constitute unfair competition. Actual or probable deception and confusion on the part of the customers by reason of defendant's practices must always appear. (Shell Co., of the Philippines, Ltd. vs. Insular Petroleum Refining Co. Ltd. et al., 120 Phil. 434, 439.)

The use of ABI of the steinie bottle, similar but not identical to the SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottle, is not unlawful. As pointed out by ABI's counsel, SMC did not invent but merely borrowed the steinie bottle from abroad and it claims neither patent nor trademark protection for that bottle shape and design. (See rollo, page 55.) The Cerveza Especial and the Efes Pale Pilsen use the "steinie" bottle. (See Exhibits 57-D, 57-E.) The trial court found no infringement of SMC's bottle —

The court agrees with defendant that there is no infringement of plaintiff's bottle, firstly, because according to plaintiff's witness Deogracias Villadolid, it is a standard type of bottle called steinie, and to witness Jose Antonio Garcia, it is not a San Miguel Corporation design but a design originally developed in the United States by the Glass Container Manufacturer's Institute and therefore lacks exclusivity. Secondly, the shape was never registered as a trademark. Exhibit "C" is not a registration of a beer bottle design required under Rep. Act 165 but the registration of the name and other marks of ownership stamped on containers as required by Rep. Act 623. Thirdly, the neck of defendant's bottle is much larger and has a distinct bulge in its uppermost part. (p. 186, Rollo.)

The petitioner's contention that bottle size, shape and color may not be the exclusive property of any one beer manufacturer is well taken. SMC's being the first to use the steinie bottle does not give SMC a vested right to use it to the exclusion of everyone else. Being of functional or common use, and not the exclusive invention of any one, it is available to all who might need to use it within the industry. Nobody can acquire any exclusive right to market articles supplying simple human needs in containers or wrappers of the general form, size and character commonly and immediately used in marketing such articles (Dy Buncio vs. Tan Tiao Bok, 42 Phil. 190, 194-195.)

. . . protection against imitation should be properly confined to nonfunctional features. Even if purely functional elements are slavishly copied, the resemblance will not support an action for unfair competition, and the first user cannot claim secondary meaning protection. Nor can the first user predicate his claim to protection on the argument that his business was established in reliance on any such unpatented nonfunctional feature, even "at large expenditure of money." (Callman Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, Sec. 19.33 [4th Ed.].) (Petition for Review, p. 28.)

ABI does not use SMC's steinie bottle. Neither did ABI copy it. ABI makes its own steinie bottle which has a fat bulging neck to differentiate it from SMC's bottle. The amber color is a functional feature of the beer bottle. As pointed out by ABI, all bottled beer produced in the Philippines is contained and sold in amber-colored bottles because amber is the most effective color in preventing transmission of light and provides the maximum protection to beer. As was ruled in California Crushed Fruit Corporation vs. Taylor B. and Candy Co., 38 F2d 885, a merchant cannot be enjoined from using a type or color of bottle where the same has the useful purpose of protecting the contents from the deleterious effects of light rays. Moreover, no one may have a monopoly of any color. Not only beer, but most medicines, whether in liquid or tablet form, are sold in amber-colored bottles.

That the ABI bottle has a 320 ml. capacity is not due to a desire to imitate SMC's bottle because that bottle capacity is the standard prescribed under Metrication Circular No. 778, dated 4 December 1979, of the Department of Trade, Metric System Board.

With regard to the white label of both beer bottles, ABI explained that it used the color white for its label because white presents the strongest contrast to the amber color of ABI's bottle; it is also the most economical to use on labels, and the easiest to "bake" in the furnace (p. 16, TSN of September 20, 1988). No one can have a monopoly of the color amber for bottles, nor of white for labels, nor of the rectangular shape which is the usual configuration of labels. Needless to say, the shape of the bottle and of the label is unimportant. What is all important is the name of the product written on the label of the bottle for that is how one beer may be distinguished form the others.

In Dy Buncio v. Tan Tiao Bok, 42 Phil. 190, 196-197, where two competing tea products were both labelled as Formosan tea, both sold in 5-ounce packages made of ordinary wrapping paper of conventional color, both with labels containing designs drawn in green ink and Chinese characters written in red ink, one label showing a double-decked jar in the center, the other, a flower pot, this court found that the resemblances between the designs were not sufficient to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer, hence, there was no unfair competition. The Court held:

. . . . In order that there may be deception of the buying public in the sense necessary to constitute unfair competition, it is necessary to suppose a public accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the goods in question. The test of fraudulent simulation is to be found in the likelihood of the deception of persons in some measure acquainted with an established design and desirous of purchasing the commodity with which that design has been associated. The test is not found in the deception, or possibility of the deception, of the person who knows nothing about the design which has been counterfeited, and who must be indifferent as between that and the other. The simulation, in order to be objectionable, must be such as appears likely to mislead the ordinarily intelligent buyer who has a need to supply and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase.

The main thrust of SMC's complaint if not infringement of its trademark, but unfair competition arising form the allegedly "confusing similarity" in the general appearance or trade dress of ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN beside SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN (p. 209, Rollo)

SMC claims that the "trade dress" of BEER PALE PILSEN is "confusingly similar" to its SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN because both are bottled in 320 ml. steinie type, amber-colored bottles with white rectangular labels.

However, when as in this case, the names of the competing products are clearly different and their respective sources are prominently printed on the label and on other parts of the bottle, mere similarity in the shape and size of the container and label, does not constitute unfair competition. The steinie bottle is a standard bottle for beer and is universally used. SMC did not invent it nor patent it. The fact that SMC's bottle is registered under R.A. No. 623 (as amended by RA 5700, An Act to Regulate the Use

of Duly Stamped or Marked Bottles, Boxes, Casks, Kegs, Barrels and Other Similar Containers) simply prohibits manufacturers of other foodstuffs from the unauthorized use of SMC's bottles by refilling these with their products. It was not uncommon then for products such as patis (fish sauce) and toyo (soy sauce) to be sold in recycled SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN bottles. Registration of SMC's beer bottles did not give SMC a patent on the steinie or on bottles of similar size, shape or color.

Most containers are standardized because they are usually made by the same manufacturer. Milk, whether in powdered or liquid form, is sold in uniform tin cans. The same can be said of the standard ketchup or vinegar bottle with its familiar elongated neck. Many other grocery items such as coffee, mayonnaise, pickles and peanut butter are sold in standard glass jars. The manufacturers of these foodstuffs have equal right to use these standards tins, bottles and jars for their products. Only their respective labels distinguish them from each other. Just as no milk producer may sue the others for unfair competition because they sell their milk in the same size and shape of milk can which he uses, neither may SMC claim unfair competition arising from the fact that ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN is sold, like SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN in amber steinie bottles.

The record does not bear out SMC's apprehension that BEER PALE PILSEN is being passed off as SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. This is unlikely to happen for consumers or buyers of beer generally order their beer by brand. As pointed out by ABI's counsel, in supermarkets and tiendas, beer is ordered by brand, and the customer surrenders his empty replacement bottles or pays a deposit to guarantee the return of the empties. If his empties are SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, he will get SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN as replacement. In sari-sari stores, beer is also ordered from the tindera by brand. The same is true in restaurants, pubs and beer gardens — beer is ordered from the waiters by brand. (Op. cit. page 50.)

Considering further that SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN has virtually monopolized the domestic beer market for the past hundred years, those who have been drinking no other beer but SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN these many years certainly know their beer too well to be deceived by a newcomer in the market. If they gravitate to ABI's cheaper beer, it will not be because they are confused or deceived, but because they find the competing product to their taste.

Our decision in this case will not diminish our ruling in "Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries," 181 SCRA 410, 419, 3 that:

. . . to determine whether a trademark has been infringed, we must consider the mark as a whole and not as dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it is attributable to the marks as a totality, not usually to any part of it.

That ruling may not apply to all kinds of products. The Court itself cautioned that in resolving cases of infringement and unfair competition, the courts should "take into consideration several factors which would affect its conclusion, to wit: the age, training and education of the usual purchaser, the nature and cost of the article, whether the article is bought for immediate consumption and also the conditions under which it is usually purchased" (181 SCRA 410, 418-419).

The Del Monte case involved catsup, a common household item which is bought off the store shelves by housewives and house help who, if they are illiterate and cannot identify the product by name or brand, would very likely identify it by mere recollection of its appearance. Since the competitor, Sunshine Sauce Mfg. Industries, not only used recycled Del Monte bottles for its catsup (despite the warning embossed on the bottles: "Del Monte Corporation. Not to be refilled.") but also used labels which were "a colorable imitation" of Del Monte's label, we held that there was infringement of Del Monte's trademark and unfair competition by Sunshine.

Our ruling in Del Monte would not apply to beer which is not usually picked from a store shelf but ordered by brand by the beer drinker himself from the storekeeper or waiter in a pub or restaurant.

Moreover, SMC's brand or trademark: "SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN" is not infringed by ABI's mark: "BEER NA BEER" or "BEER PALE PILSEN." ABI makes its own bottle with a bulging neck to differentiate it from SMC's bottle, and prints ABI's name in three (3) places on said bottle (front, back and bottle cap) to prove that it has no intention to pass of its "BEER" as "SAN MIGUEL."

There is no confusing similarity between the competing beers for the name of one is "SAN MIGUEL" while the competitor is plain "BEER" and the points of dissimilarity between the two outnumber their points of similarity.

Petitioner ABI has neither infringed SMC's trademark nor committed unfair competition with the latter's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN product. While its BEER PALE PILSEN admittedly competes with the latter in the open market, that competition is neither unfair nor fraudulent. Hence, we must deny SMC's prayer to suppress it.

WHEREFORE, finding the petition for review meritorious, the same is hereby granted. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 28104 are hereby set aside and that of the trial court is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 100098 December 29, 1995

EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC., respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation seeks to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 November 1990 in CA-G.R. SP No. 15266 declaring petitioner's trademark to be confusingly similar to that of private respondent and the resolution dated 17 May 1991 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The record reveals the following antecedent facts:

On 18 September 1981, private respondent H.D. Lee Co., Inc., a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, U.S.A., filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks & Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. SR 5054 (Supplemental Register) for the trademark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" used on skirts, jeans, blouses, socks, briefs, jackets, jogging suits, dresses, shorts, shirts and lingerie under Class 25, issued on 27 October 1980 in the name of petitioner Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation, a domestic corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws. The petition was docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 1558. 1

Private respondent, invoking Sec. 37 of R.A. No. 166 (Trademark Law) and Art. VIII of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, averred that petitioner's trademark "so closely resembled its own trademark, 'LEE' as previously registered and used in the Philippines, and not abandoned, as to be likely, when applied to or used in connection with petitioner's goods, to cause confusion, mistake and deception on the part of the purchasing public as to the origin of the goods." 2

In its answer dated 23 March 1982, petitioner contended that its trademark was entirely and unmistakably different from that of private respondent and that its certificate of registration was legally and validly granted. 3

On 20 February 1984, petitioner caused the publication of its application for registration of the trademark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" in the Principal Register." 4

On 27 July 1984, private respondent filed a notice of opposition to petitioner's application for registration also on grounds that petitioner's trademark was confusingly similar to its "LEE" trademark. 5 The case was docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 1860.

On 21 June 1985, the Director of Patents, on motion filed by private respondent dated 15 May 1985, issued an order consolidating Inter Partes Cases Nos. 1558 and 1860 on grounds that a common question of law was involved. 6

On 19 July 1988, the Director of Patents rendered a decision granting private respondent's petition for cancellation and opposition to registration.

The Director of Patents found private respondent to be the prior registrant of the trademark "LEE" in the Philippines and that it had been using said mark in the Philippines. 7

Moreover, the Director of Patents, using the test of dominancy, declared that petitioner's trademark was confusingly similar to private respondent's mark because "it is the word 'Lee' which draws the attention of the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer. It is undeniably the dominant feature of the mark." 8

On 3 August 1988, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals and on 8 August 1988, it filed with the BPTTT a Motion to Stay Execution of the 19 July 1988 decision of the Director of Patents on grounds that the same would cause it great and irreparable damage and injury. Private respondent submitted its opposition on 22 August 1988. 9

On 23 September 1988, the BPTTT issued Resolution No. 88-33 granting petitioner's motion to stay execution subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. That under this resolution, Respondent-Registrant is authorized only to dispose of its current stock using the mark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE";

2. That Respondent-Registrant is strictly prohibited from further production, regardless of mode and source, of the mark in question (STYLISTIC MR. LEE) in addition to its current stock;

3. That this relief Order shall automatically cease upon resolution of the Appeal by the Court of Appeals and, if the Respondent's appeal loses, all goods bearing the mark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" shall be removed from the market, otherwise such goods shall be seized in accordance with the law.

SO ORDERED. 10

On 29 November 1990, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming the decision of the Director of Patents dated 19 July 1988 in all respects. 11

In said decision the Court of Appeals expounded, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

Whether or not a trademark causes confusion and is likely to deceive the public is a question of fact which is to be resolved by applying the "test of dominancy", meaning, if the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another by reason of which confusion and deception are likely to result, then infringement takes place; that duplication or imitation is not necessary, a similarity in the dominant features of the trademark would be sufficient.

The word "LEE" is the most prominent and distinctive feature of the appellant's trademark and all of the appellee's "LEE" trademarks. It is the mark which draws the attention of the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer. While it is true that there are other

words such as "STYLISTIC", printed in the appellant's label, such word is printed in such small letters over the word "LEE" that it is not conspicuous enough to draw the attention of ordinary buyers whereas the word "LEE" is printed across the label in big, bold letters and of the same color, style, type and size of lettering as that of the trademark of the appellee. The alleged difference is too insubstantial to be noticeable. Even granting arguendo that the word "STYLISTIC" is conspicuous enough to draw attention, the goods may easily be mistaken for just another variation or line of garments under the ap appelle's "LEE" trademarks in view of the fact that the appellee has registered trademarks which use other words in addition to the principal mark "LEE" such as "LEE RIDERS", "LEESURES" and "LEE LEENS". The likelihood of confusion is further made more probable by the fact that both parties are engaged in the same line of business. It is well to reiterate that the determinative factor in ascertaining whether or not the marks are confusingly similar to each other is not whether the challenged mark would actually cause confusion or deception of the purchasers but whether the use of such mark would likely cause confusion or mistake on the part of the buying public.

xxx xxx xxx

The appellee has sufficiently established its right to prior use and registration of the trademark "LEE" in the Philippines and is thus entitled to protection from any infringement upon the same. It is thus axiomatic that one who has identified a peculiar symbol or mark with his goods thereby acquires a property right in such symbol or mark, and if another infringes the trademark, he thereby invokes this property right.

The merchandise or goods being sold by the parties are not that expensive as alleged to be by the appellant and are quite ordinary commodities purchased by the average person and at times, by the ignorant and the unlettered. Ordinary purchasers will not as a rule examine the small letterings printed on the label but will simply be guided by the presence of the striking mark "LEE". Whatever difference there may be will pale in insignificance in the face of an evident similarity in the dominant features and overall appearance of the labels of the parties. 12

xxx xxx xxx

On 19 December 1990, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-mentioned decision of the Court of Appeals.

Private respondent opposed said motion on 8 January 1991 on grounds that it involved an impermissible change of theory on appeal. Petitioner allegedly raised entirely new and unrelated arguments and defenses not previously raised in the proceedings below such as laches and a claim that private respondent appropriated the style and appearance of petitioner's trademark when it registered its "LEE" mark under Registration No. 44220. 13

On 17 May 1991, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution rejecting petitioner's motion for reconsideration and ruled thus:

xxx xxx xxx

A defense not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal for the first time. An issue raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court is barred by estoppel.

The object of requiring the parties to present all questions and issues to the lower court before they can be presented to this Court is to have the lower court rule upon them, so that this Court on appeal may determine whether or not such ruling was erroneous. The purpose is also in furtherance of justice to require the party to first present the question he contends for in the lower court so that the other party may not be taken by surprise and may present evidence to properly meet the issues raised.

Moreover, for a question to be raised on appeal, the same must also be within the issues raised by the parties in their pleadings. Consequently, when a party deliberately adopts a certain theory, and the case is tried and decided based upon such theory presented in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal. To permit him to do so would be unfair to the adverse party. A question raised for the first time on appeal, there having opportunity to raise them in the court of origin constitutes a change of theory which is not permissible on appeal.

In the instant case, appellant's main defense pleaded in its answer dated March 23, 1982 was that there was "no confusing similarity between the competing trademark involved. On appeal, the appellant raised a single issue, to wit:

The only issue involved in this case is whether or not respondent-registrant's trademark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" is confusingly similar with the petitioner's trademarks "LEE or LEERIDERS, LEE-LEENS and LEE-SURES."

Appellant's main argument in this motion for reconsideration on the other hand is that the appellee is estopped by laches from asserting its right to its trademark. Appellant claims although belatedly that appellee went to court with "unclean hands" by changing the appearance of its trademark to make it identical to the appellant's trademark.

Neither defenses were raised by the appellant in the proceedings before the Bureau of Patents. Appellant cannot raise them now for the first time on appeal, let alone on a mere motion for reconsideration of the decision of this Court dismissing the appellant's appeal.

While there may be instances and situations justifying relaxation of this rule, the circumstance of the instant case, equity would be better served by applying the settled rule it appearing that appellant has not given any reason at all as to why the defenses raised in its motion for reconsideration was not invoked earlier. 14

xxx xxx xxx

Twice rebuffed, petitioner presents its case before this Court on the following assignment of errors:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF A FOURTH "LEE" TRADEMARK IMITATING THAT OF THE PETITIONER'S ON MAY 5, 1989 OR MORE THAN EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE BUREAU OF PATENT'S DECISION DATED JULY 19, 1988.

II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DEFENSE OF ESTOPPEL BY LACHES MUST BE RAISED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.

III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT CONSIDERED PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S PRIOR REGISTRATION OF ITS TRADEMARK AND DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAD FAILED TO PROVE COMMERCIAL USE THEREOF BEFORE FILING OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. 15

In addition, petitioner reiterates the issues it raised in the Court of Appeals:

I. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S TRADEMARK SYTLISTIC MR. LEE, IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR WITH THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S TRADEMARK LEE OR LEE-RIDER, LEE-LEENS AND LEE-SURES.

II. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCES ARE CLEAR AND SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT IT IS THE PRIOR USER AND ITS TRADEMARK IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

III. PETITIONER'S TRADEMARK IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S AND THE REGISTRATION OF ITS TRADEMARK IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH.

IV. PETITIONER'S "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" TRADEMARK CANNOT BE CONFUSED WITH PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S LEE TRADEMARK. 16

Petitioner contends that private respondent is estopped from instituting an action for infringement before the BPTTT under the equitable principle of laches pursuant to Sec. 9-A of R.A. No. 166, otherwise known as the Law on Trade-marks, Trade-names and Unfair Competition:

Sec. 9-A. Equitable principles to govern proceedings. — In opposition proceedings and in all other inter partes proceedings in the patent office under this act, equitable principles of laches, estoppel, and acquiescence, where applicable, may be considered and applied.

Petitioner alleges that it has been using its trademark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" since 1 May 1975, yet, it was only on 18 September 1981 that private respondent filed a petition for cancellation of petitioner's

certificate of registration for the said trademark. Similarly, private respondent's notice of opposition to petitioner's application for registration in the principal register was belatedly filed on 27 July 1984. 17

Private respondent counters by maintaining that petitioner was barred from raising new issues on appeal, the only contention in the proceedings below being the presence or absence of confusing similarity between the two trademarks in question. 18

We reject petitioner's contention.

Petitioner's trademark is registered in the supplemental register. The Trademark Law (R.A. No. 166) provides that "marks and tradenames for the supplemental register shall not be published for or be subject to opposition, but shall be published on registration in the Official Gazette." 19 The reckoning point, therefore, should not be 1 May 1975, the date of alleged use by petitioner of its assailed trademark but 27 October 1980, 20 the date the certificate of registration SR No. 5054 was published in the Official Gazette and issued to petitioner.

It was only on the date of publication and issuance of the registration certificate that private respondent may be considered "officially" put on notice that petitioner has appropriated or is using said mark, which, after all, is the function and purpose of registration in the supplemental register. 21 The record is bereft of evidence that private respondent was aware of petitioner's trademark before the date of said publication and issuance. Hence, when private respondent instituted cancellation proceedings on 18 September 1981, less than a year had passed.

Corollarily, private respondent could hardly be accused of inexcusable delay in filing its notice of opposition to petitioner's application for registration in the principal register since said application was published only on 20 February 1984. 22 From the time of publication to the time of filing the opposition on 27 July 1984 barely five (5) months had elapsed. To be barred from bringing suit on grounds of estoppel and laches, the delay must be lengthy. 23

More crucial is the issue of confusing similarity between the two trademarks. Petitioner vehemently contends that its trademark "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" is entirely different from and not confusingly similar to private respondent's "LEE" trademark.

Private respondent maintains otherwise. It asserts that petitioner's trademark tends to mislead and confuse the public and thus constitutes an infringement of its own mark, since the dominant feature therein is the word "LEE."

The pertinent provision of R.A. No. 166 (Trademark Law) states thus:

Sec. 22. Infringement, what constitutes. — Any person who shall use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-

name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitable any such mark or trade-name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services; shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided.

Practical application, however, of the aforesaid provision is easier said than done. In the history of trademark cases in the Philippines, particularly in ascertaining whether one trademark is confusingly similar to or is a colorable imitation of another, no set rules can be deduced. Each case must be decided on its own merits.

In Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 24 we held:

. . . But likelihood of confusion is a relative concept; to be determined only according to the particular, and sometimes peculiar, circumstances of each case. It is unquestionably true that, as stated in Coburn vs. Puritan Mills, Inc.: "In trademark cases, even more than in other litigation, precedent must be studied in the light of the facts of the particular case."

xxx xxx xxx

Likewise, it has been observed that:

In determining whether a particular name or mark is a "colorable imitation" of another, no all-embracing rule seems possible in view of the great number of factors which must necessarily be considered in resolving this question of fact, such as the class of product or business to which the article belongs; the product's quality, quantity, or size, including its wrapper or container; the dominant color, style, size, form, meaning of letters, words, designs and emblems used; the nature of the package, wrapper or container; the character of the product's purchasers; location of the business; the likelihood of deception or the mark or name's tendency to confuse;etc. 25

Proceeding to the task at hand, the essential element of infringement is colorable imitation. This term has been defined as "such a close or ingenious imitation as to be calculated to deceive ordinary purchasers, or such resemblance of the infringing mark to the original as to deceive an ordinary purchaser giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, and to cause him to purchase the one supposing it to be the other." 26

Colorable imitation does not mean such similitude as amounts to identity. Nor does it require that all the details be literally copied. Colorable imitation refers to such similarity in form, content, words, sound, meaning, special arrangement, or general appearance of the trademark or tradename with that

of the other mark or tradename in their over-all presentation or in their essential, substantive and distinctive parts as would likely mislead or confuse persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article. 27

In determining whether colorable imitation exists, jurisprudence has developed two kinds of tests — the Dominancy Test applied in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 28 and other cases 29 and the Holistic Test developed in Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals 30 and its proponent cases. 31

As its title implies, the test of dominancy focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception and thus constitutes infringement.

xxx xxx xxx

. . . If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another, and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor it is necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. [C. Neilman Brewing Co. v. Independent Brewing Co., 191 F., 489, 495, citing Eagle White Lead Co., vs. Pflugh (CC) 180 Fed. 579]. The question at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether the use of the marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistakes in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers. (Auburn Rubber Corporation vs. Honover Rubber Co., 107 F. 2d 588; . . .) 32

xxx xxx xxx

On the other side of the spectrum, the holistic test mandates that the entirety of the marks in question must be considered in determining confusing similarity.

xxx xxx xxx

In determining whether the trademarks are confusingly similar, a comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor. The trademarks in their entirety as they appear in their respective labels or hang tags must also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that he may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other. 33

xxx xxx xxx

Applying the foregoing tenets to the present controversy and taking into account the factual circumstances of this case, we considered the trademarks involved as a whole and rule that petitioner's "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" is not confusingly similar to private respondent's "LEE" trademark.

Petitioner's trademark is the whole "STYLISTIC MR. LEE." Although on its label the word "LEE" is prominent, the trademark should be considered as a whole and not piecemeal. The dissimilarities between the two marks become conspicuous, noticeable and substantial enough to matter especially in the light of the following variables that must be factored in.

First, the products involved in the case at bar are, in the main, various kinds of jeans. These are not your ordinary household items like catsup, soysauce or soap which are of minimal cost. Maong pants or jeans are not inexpensive. Accordingly, the casual buyer is predisposed to be more cautious and discriminating in and would prefer to mull over his purchase. Confusion and deception, then, is less likely. In Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 34 we noted that:

. . . Among these, what essentially determines the attitudes of the purchaser, specifically his inclination to be cautious, is the cost of the goods. To be sure, a person who buys a box of candies will not exercise as much care as one who buys an expensive watch. As a general rule, an ordinary buyer does not exercise as much prudence in buying an article for which he pays a few centavos as he does in purchasing a more valuable thing. Expensive and valuable items are normally bought only after deliberate, comparative and analytical investigation. But mass products, low priced articles in wide use, and matters of everyday purchase requiring frequent replacement are bought by the casual consumer without great care. . . .

Second, like his beer, the average Filipino consumer generally buys his jeans by brand. He does not ask the sales clerk for generic jeans but for, say, a Levis, Guess, Wrangler or even an Armani. He is, therefore, more or less knowledgeable and familiar with his preference and will not easily be distracted.

Finally, in line with the foregoing discussions, more credit should be given to the "ordinary purchaser." Cast in this particular controversy, the ordinary purchaser is not the "completely unwary consumer" but is the "ordinarily intelligent buyer" considering the type of product involved.

The definition laid down in Dy Buncio v. Tan Tiao Bok 35 is better suited to the present case. There, the "ordinary purchaser" was defined as one "accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the goods in question. The test of fraudulent simulation is to be found in the likelihood of the deception of some persons in some measure acquainted with an established design and desirous of purchasing the commodity with which that design has been associated. The test is not found in the deception, or the possibility of deception, of the person who knows nothing about the design which has been counterfeited, and who must be indifferent between that and the other. The simulation, in order to be objectionable, must be such as appears likely to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer who has a need to supply and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase."

There is no cause for the Court of Appeal's apprehension that petitioner's products might be mistaken as "another variation or line of garments under private respondent's 'LEE' trademark". 36 As one would readily observe, private respondent's variation follows a standard format "LEERIDERS," "LEESURES" and

"LEELEENS." It is, therefore, improbable that the public would immediately and naturally conclude that petitioner's "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" is but another variation under private respondent's "LEE" mark.

As we have previously intimated the issue of confusing similarity between trademarks is resolved by considering the distinct characteristics of each case. In the present controversy, taking into account these unique factors, we conclude that the similarities in the trademarks in question are not sufficient as to likely cause deception and confusion tantamount to infringement.

Another way of resolving the conflict is to consider the marks involved from the point of view of what marks are registrable pursuant to Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 166, particularly paragraph 4 (e):

CHAPTER II-A.— The Principal Register(Inserted by Sec. 2, Rep. Act No. 638.)

Sec. 4. Registration of trade-marks, trade-names and service-marks on the principal register. — There is hereby established a register of trade-marks, trade-names and service-marks which shall be known as the principal register. The owner of a trade-mark, trade-name or service-mark used to distinguish his goods, business or services from the goods, business or services of others shall have the right to register the same on the principal register, unless it:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) Consists of a mark or trade-name which, when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, or when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, or is primarily merely a surname; (Emphasis ours.)

xxx xxx xxx

"LEE" is primarily a surname. Private respondent cannot, therefore, acquire exclusive ownership over and singular use of said term.

. . . It has been held that a personal name or surname may not be monopolized as a trademark or tradename as against others of the same name or surname. For in the absence of contract, fraud, or estoppel, any man may use his name or surname in all legitimate ways. Thus, "Wellington" is a surname, and its first user has no cause of action against the junior user of "Wellington" as it is incapable of exclusive appropriation. 37

In addition to the foregoing, we are constrained to agree with petitioner's contention that private respondent failed to prove prior actual commercial use of its "LEE" trademark in the Philippines before

filing its application for registration with the BPTTT and hence, has not acquired ownership over said mark.

Actual use in commerce in the Philippines is an essential prerequisite for the acquisition of ownership over a trademark pursuant to Sec. 2 and 2-A of the Philippine Trademark Law (R.A. No. 166) which explicitly provides that:

CHAPTER II. Registration of Marks and Trade-names.

Sec. 2. What are registrable. — Trade-marks, trade-names, and service marks owned by persons, corporations, partnerships or associations domiciled in the Philippines and by persons, corporations, partnerships, or associations domiciled in any foreign country may be registered in accordance with the provisions of this act: Provided, That said trade-marks, trade-names, or service marks are actually in use in commerce and services not less than two months in the Philippines before the time the applications for registration are filed: And Provided, further, That the country of which the applicant for registration is a citizen grants by law substantially similar privileges to citizens of the Philippines, and such fact is officially certified, with a certified true copy of the foreign law translated into the English language, by the government of the foreign country to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. (As amended.) (Emphasis ours.)

Sec. 2-A. Ownership of trade-marks, trade-names and service-marks; how acquired. — Anyone who lawfully produces or deals in merchandise of any kind or who engages in lawful business, or who renders any lawful service in commerce, by actual use hereof in manufacture or trade, in business, and in the service rendered; may appropriate to his exclusive use a trade-mark, a trade-name, or a service-mark not so appropriated by another, to distinguish his merchandise, business or services from others. The ownership or possession of trade-mark, trade-name, service-mark, heretofore or hereafter appropriated, as in this section provided, shall be recognized and protected in the same manner and to the same extent as are other property rights to the law. (As amended.) (Emphasis ours.)

The provisions of the 1965 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 38 relied upon by private respondent and Sec. 21-A of the Trademark Law (R.A. No. 166) 39 were sufficiently expounded upon and qualified in the recent case of Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: 40

xxx xxx xxx

Following universal acquiescence and comity, our municipal law on trademarks regarding the requirement of actual use in the Philippines must subordinate an international agreement inasmuch as the apparent clash is being decided by a municipal tribunal (Mortisen vs. Peters, Great Britain, High Court of Judiciary of Scotland, 1906, 8 Sessions, 93; Paras, International Law and World Organization, 1971 Ed., p. 20). Withal, the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere.

Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislative enactments.

xxx xxx xxx

In other words, (a foreign corporation) may have the capacity to sue for infringement irrespective of lack of business activity in the Philippines on account of Section 21-A of the Trademark Law but the question of whether they have an exclusive right over their symbol as to justify issuance of the controversial writ will depend on actual use of their trademarks in the Philippines in line with Sections 2 and 2-A of the same law. It is thus incongruous for petitioners to claim that when a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines files a complaint for infringement, the entity need not be actually using its trademark in commerce in the Philippines. Such a foreign corporation may have the personality to file a suit for infringement but it may not necessarily be entitled to protection due to absence of actual use of the emblem in the local market.

xxx xxx xxx

Undisputably, private respondent is the senior registrant, having obtained several registration certificates for its various trademarks "LEE," "LEERIDERS," and "LEESURES" in both the supplemental and principal registers, as early as 1969 to 1973. 41 However, registration alone will not suffice. In Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 42 we declared:

xxx xxx xxx

A rule widely accepted and firmly entrenched because it has come down through the years is that actual use in commerce or business is a prerequisite in the acquisition of the right of ownership over a trademark.

xxx xxx xxx

It would seem quite clear that adoption alone of a trademark would not give exclusive right thereto. Such right "grows out of their actual use." Adoption is not use. One may make advertisements, issue circulars, give out price lists on certain goods; but these alone would not give exclusive right of use. For trademark is a creation of use. The underlying reason for all these is that purchasers have come to understand the mark as indicating the origin of the wares. Flowing from this is the trader's right to protection in the trade he has built up and the goodwill he has accumulated from use of the trademark. Registration of a trademark, of course, has value: it is an administrative act declaratory of a pre-existing right. Registration does not, however, perfect a trademark right. (Emphasis ours.)

xxx xxx xxx

To augment its arguments that it was, not only the prior registrant, but also the prior user, private respondent invokes Sec. 20 of the Trademark Law, thus:

Sec. 20. Certificate of registration prima facie evidence of validity. — A certificate of registration of a mark or tradename shall be a prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration, the registrant's ownership of the mark or trade-name, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods, business or services specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions and limitations stated therein.

The credibility placed on a certificate of registration of one's trademark, or its weight as evidence of validity, ownership and exclusive use, is qualified. A registration certificate serves merely as prima facie evidence. It is not conclusive but can and may be rebutted by controverting evidence.

Moreover, the aforequoted provision applies only to registrations in the principal register. 43 Registrations in the supplemental register do not enjoy a similar privilege. A supplemental register was created precisely for the registration of marks which are not registrable on the principal register due to some defects. 44

The determination as to who is the prior user of the trademark is a question of fact and it is this Court's working principle not to disturb the findings of the Director of Patents on this issue in the absence of any showing of grave abuse of discretion. The findings of facts of the Director of Patents are conclusive upon the Supreme Court provided they are supported by substantial evidence. 45

In the case at bench, however, we reverse the findings of the Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals. After a meticulous study of the records, we observe that the Director of Patents and the Court of Appeals relied mainly on the registration certificates as proof of use by private respondent of the trademark "LEE" which, as we have previously discussed are not sufficient. We cannot give credence to private respondent's claim that its "LEE" mark first reached the Philippines in the 1960's through local sales by the Post Exchanges of the U.S. Military Bases in the Philippines 46 based as it was solely on the self-serving statements of Mr. Edward Poste, General Manager of Lee (Phils.), Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the H.D. Lee, Co., Inc., U.S.A., herein private respondent. 47 Similarly, we give little weight to the numerous vouchers representing various advertising expenses in the Philippines for "LEE" products. 48 It is well to note that these expenses were incurred only in 1981 and 1982 by LEE (Phils.), Inc. after it entered into a licensing agreement with private respondent on 11 May 1981. 49

On the other hand, petitioner has sufficiently shown that it has been in the business of selling jeans and other garments adopting its "STYLISTIC MR. LEE" trademark since 1975 as evidenced by appropriate sales invoices to various stores and retailers. 50

Our rulings in Pagasa Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals 51 and Converse Rubber Corp. v. Universal Rubber Products, Inc., 52 respectively, are instructive:

The Trademark Law is very clear. It requires actual commercial use of the mark prior to its registration. There is no dispute that respondent corporation was the first registrant, yet it failed to fully substantiate its claim that it used in trade or business in the Philippines the subject mark; it did not present proof to invest it with exclusive, continuous adoption of the trademark which should consist among others, of considerable sales since its first use. The invoices submitted by respondent which were dated way back in 1957 show that the zippers sent to the Philippines were to be used as "samples" and "of no commercial value." The evidence for respondent must be clear, definite and free from inconsistencies. "Samples" are not for sale and therefore, the fact of exporting them to the Philippines cannot be considered to be equivalent to the "use" contemplated by law. Respondent did not expect income from such "samples." There were no receipts to establish sale, and no proof were presented to show that they were subsequently sold in the Philippines.

xxx xxx xxx

The sales invoices provide the best proof that there were actual sales of petitioner's product in the country and that there was actual use for a protracted period of petitioner's trademark or part thereof through these sales.

For lack of adequate proof of actual use of its trademark in the Philippines prior to petitioner's use of its own mark and for failure to establish confusing similarity between said trademarks, private respondent's action for infringement must necessarily fail.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the questioned decision and resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 112012 April 4, 2001

SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A. and NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and CFC CORPORATION., respondents.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This is a petition for review assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 24101,1 reversing and setting aside the decision of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT),2 which denied private respondent’s application for registration of the trade-mark, FLAVOR MASTER.

On January 18, 1984, private respondent CFC Corporation filed with the BPTTT an application for the registration of the trademark "FLAVOR MASTER" for instant coffee, under Serial No. 52994. The application, as a matter of due course, was published in the July 18, 1988 issue of the BPTTT’s Official Gazette.

Petitioner Societe Des Produits Nestle, S.A., a Swiss company registered under Swiss laws and domiciled in Switzerland, filed an unverified Notice of Opposition,3 claiming that the trademark of private respondent’s product is "confusingly similar to its trademarks for coffee and coffee extracts, to wit: MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND."

Likewise, a verified Notice of Opposition was filed by Nestle Philippines, Inc., a Philippine corporation and a licensee of Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., against CFC’s application for registration of the trademark FLAVOR MASTER.4 Nestle claimed that the use, if any, by CFC of the trademark FLAVOR MASTER and its registration would likely cause confusion in the trade; or deceive purchasers and would falsely suggest to the purchasing public a connection in the business of Nestle, as the dominant word present in the three (3) trademarks is "MASTER"; or that the goods of CFC might be mistaken as having originated from the latter.

In answer to the two oppositions, CFC argued that its trademark, FLAVOR MASTER, is not confusingly similar with the former’s trademarks, MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND, alleging that, "except for the word MASTER (which cannot be exclusively appropriated by any person for being a descriptive or generic name), the other words that are used respectively with said word in the three trademarks are very different from each other – in meaning, spelling, pronunciation, and sound". CFC further argued that its trademark, FLAVOR MASTER, "is clearly very different from any of Nestle’s alleged trademarks MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND, especially when the marks are viewed in their entirety, by considering their pictorial representations, color schemes and the letters of their respective labels."

In its Decision No. 90-47 dated December 27, 1990, the BPTTT denied CFC’s application for registration.5 CFC elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 24101.

The Court of Appeals defined the issue thus: "Does appellant CFC’s trade dress bear a striking resemblance with appellee’s trademarks as to create in the purchasing public’s mind the mistaken impression that both coffee products come from one and the same source?"

As stated above, the Court of Appeals, in the assailed decision dated September 23, 1993, reversed Decision No. 90-47 of the BPTTT and ordered the Director of Patents to approve CFC’s application. The Court of Appeals ruled:

Were We to take even a lackadaisical glance at the overall appearance of the contending marks, the physical discrepancies between appellant CFC’s and appellee’s respective logos are so ostensible that the casual purchaser cannot likely mistake one for the other. Appellant CFC’s label (Exhibit "4") is predominantly a blend of dark and lighter shade of orange where the words "FLAVOR MASTER",

"FLAVOR" appearing on top of "MASTER", shaded in mocha with thin white inner and outer sidings per letter and identically lettered except for the slightly protruding bottom curve of the letter "S" adjoining the bottom tip of the letter "A" in the word "MASTER", are printed across the top of a simmering red coffee cup. Underneath "FLAVOR MASTER" appears "Premium Instant Coffee" printed in white, slim and slanted letters. Appellees’ "MASTER ROAST" label (Exhibit "7"), however, is almost double the width of appellant CFC’s. At the top is printed in brown color the word "NESCAFE" against a white backdrop. Occupying the center is a square-shaped configuration shaded with dark brown and picturing a heap of coffee beans, where the word "MASTER" is inscribed in the middle. "MASTER" in appellees’ label is printed in taller capital letters, with the letter "M" further capitalized. The letters are shaded with red and bounded with thin gold-colored inner and outer sidings. Just above the word "MASTER" is a red window like portrait of what appears to be a coffee shrub clad in gold. Below the "MASTER" appears the word "ROAST" impressed in smaller, white print. And further below are the inscriptions in white: "A selection of prime Arabica and Robusta coffee." With regard to appellees’ "MASTER BLEND" label (Exhibit "6") of which only a xeroxed copy is submitted, the letters are bolder and taller as compared to appellant CFC’s and the word "MASTER" appears on top of the word "BLEND" and below it are the words "100% pure instant coffee" printed in small letters.

From the foregoing description, while the contending marks depict the same product, the glaring dissimilarities in their presentation far outweigh and dispel any aspect of similitude. To borrow the words of the Supreme Court in American Cyanamid Co. v. Director of Patents (76 SCRA 568), appellant CFC’s and appellees’ labels are entirely different in size, background, colors, contents and pictorial arrangement; in short, the general appearances of the labels bearing the respective trademarks are so distinct from each other that appellees cannot assert that the dominant features, if any, of its trademarks were used or appropriated in appellant CFC’s own. The distinctions are so well-defined so as to foreclose any probability or likelihood of confusion or deception on the part of the normally intelligent buyer when he or she encounters both coffee products at the grocery shelf. The answer therefore to the query is a clear-cut NO.6

Petitioners are now before this Court on the following assignment of errors:

1. RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION (NO. 90-47) OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER (BPTTT) DATED DECEMBER 27, 1990.

2. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT CFC’S TRADE DRESS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROSCRIPTION LAID DOWN BY JURISPRUDENCE AND THE TRADEMARK LAW.

3. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TOTALITY RULE, RATHER THAN THE TEST OF DOMINANCY, APPLIES TO THE CASE.

4. RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN INVOKING THE TOTALITY RULE APPLIED IN THE CASES OF BRISTOL MYERS V. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL. (17 SCRA 128), MEAD JOHNSON & CO. V. NVJ VAN DORF LTD., (7 SCRA 768) AND AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. V. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS (76 SCRA 568).

The petition is impressed with merit.

A trademark has been generally defined as "any word, name, symbol or device adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and distinguish them from those manufactured and sold by others."7

A manufacturer’s trademark is entitled to protection. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter observed in the case of Mishawaka Mfg. Co. v. Kresge Co.:8

The protection of trade-marks is the law’s recognition of the psychological function of symbols. If it is true that we live by symbols, it is no less true that we purchase goods by them. A trade-mark is a merchandising short-cut which induces a purchaser to select what he wants, or what he has been led to believe he wants. The owner of a mark exploits this human propensity by making every effort to impregnate the atmosphere of the market with the drawing power of a congenial symbol. Whatever the means employed, the aim is the same --- to convey through the mark, in the minds of potential customers, the desirability of the commodity upon which it appears. Once this is attained, the trade-mark owner has something of value. If another poaches upon the commercial magnetism of the symbol he has created, the owner can obtain legal redress.

Section 4 (d) of Republic Act No. 166 or the Trademark Law, as amended, which was in force at the time, provides thus:

Registration of trade-marks, trade-names and service-marks on the principal register. - There is hereby established a register of trade-marks, trade-names and service marks which shall be known as the principal register. The owner of a trade-mark, trade-name or service-mark used to distinguish his goods, business or services from the goods, business or services of others shall have the right to register the same on the principal register, unless it:

x x x x x x x x x

(d) Consists of or comprises a mark or trade-name which so resembles a mark or trade-name registered in the Philippines or a mark or trade-name previously used in the Philippines by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when applied to or used in connection with the goods, business or services of the applicant, to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers;

x x x x x x x x x

(Emphasis supplied)

The law prescribes a more stringent standard in that there should not only be confusing similarity but that it should not likely cause confusion or mistake or deceive purchasers.

Hence, the question in this case is whether there is a likelihood that the trademark FLAVOR MASTER may cause confusion or mistake or may deceive purchasers that said product is the same or is manufactured by the same company. In other words, the issue is whether the trademark FLAVOR MASTER is a colorable imitation of the trademarks MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND.

Colorable imitation denotes such a close or ingenious imitation as to be calculated to deceive ordinary persons, or such a resemblance to the original as to deceive an ordinary purchaser giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, as to cause him to purchase the one supposing it to be the other.9 In determining if colorable imitation exists, jurisprudence has developed two kinds of tests - the Dominancy Test and the Holistic Test.10 The test of dominancy focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception and thus constitute infringement. On the other side of the spectrum, the holistic test mandates that the entirety of the marks in question must be considered in determining confusing similarity.11

In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals held that:

The determination of whether two trademarks are indeed confusingly similar must be taken from the viewpoint of the ordinary purchasers who are, in general, undiscerningly rash in buying the more common and less expensive household products like coffee, and are therefore less inclined to closely examine specific details of similarities and dissimilarities between competing products. The Supreme Court in Del Monte Corporation v. CA, 181 SCRA 410, held that:

"The question is not whether the two articles are distinguishable by their labels when set side by side but whether the general confusion made by the article upon the eye of the casual purchaser who is unsuspicious and off his guard, is such as to likely result in his confounding it with the original. As observed in several cases, the general impression of the ordinary purchaser, buying under the normally prevalent conditions in trade and giving the attention such purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods, is the touchstone."

From this perspective, the test of similarity is to consider the two marks in their entirety, as they appear in the respective labels, in relation to the goods to which they are attached (Bristol Myers Company v. Director of Patents, et al., 17 SCRA 128, citing Mead Johnson & Co. v. NVJ Van Dorp, Ltd., et al., 7 SCRA 768). The mark must be considered as a whole and not as dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it is attributable to the marks as a totality, not usually to any part of it (Del Monte Corp. v. CA, supra), as what appellees would want it to be when they essentially argue that much of the confusion springs from appellant CFC’s use of the word "MASTER" which appellees claim to be the dominant feature of their own trademarks that captivates the prospective consumers. Be it further emphasized that the discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features

appearing in both labels in order that he may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other (Mead Johnson & Co. v. NVJ Van Dorp, Ltd., supra).12

The Court of Appeals applied some judicial precedents which are not on all fours with this case. It must be emphasized that in infringement or trademark cases in the Philippines, particularly in ascertaining whether one trademark is confusingly similar to or is a colorable imitation of another, no set rules can be deduced. Each case must be decided on its own merits.13 In Esso Standard, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,14 we ruled that the likelihood of confusion is a relative concept; to be determined only according to the particular, and sometimes peculiar, circumstances of each case. In trademark cases, even more than in any other litigation, precedent must be studied in light of the facts of the particular case. The wisdom of the likelihood of confusion test lies in its recognition that each trademark infringement case presents its own unique set of facts. Indeed, the complexities attendant to an accurate assessment of likelihood of confusion require that the entire panoply of elements constituting the relevant factual landscape be comprehensively examined.15

The Court of Appeals’ application of the case of Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals16 is, therefore, misplaced. In Del Monte, the issue was about the alleged similarity of Del Monte’s logo with that of Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries. Both corporations market the catsup product which is an inexpensive and common household item.

Since Del Monte alleged that Sunshine’s logo was confusingly similar to or was a colorable imitation of the former’s logo, there was a need to go into the details of the two logos as well as the shapes of the labels or marks, the brands printed on the labels, the words or lettering on the labels or marks and the shapes and colors of the labels or marks. The same criteria, however, cannot be applied in the instant petition as the facts and circumstances herein are peculiarly different from those in the Del Monte case.

In the same manner, the Court of Appeals erred in applying the totality rule as defined in the cases of Bristol Myers v. Director of Patents;17 Mead Johnson & Co. v. NVJ Van Dorf Ltd.;18 and American Cyanamid Co. v. Director of Patents.19 The totality rule states that "the test is not simply to take their words and compare the spelling and pronunciation of said words. In determining whether two trademarks are confusingly similar, the two marks in their entirety as they appear in the respective labels must be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached; the discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing on both labels."20

As this Court has often declared, each case must be studied according to the peculiar circumstances of each case. That is the reason why in trademark cases, jurisprudential precedents should be applied only to a case if they are specifically in point.

In the above cases cited by the Court of Appeals to justify the application of the totality or holistic test to this instant case, the factual circumstances are substantially different. In the Bristol Myers case, this Court held that although both BIOFERIN and BUFFERIN are primarily used for the relief of pains such as

headaches and colds, and their names are practically the same in spelling and pronunciation, both labels have strikingly different backgrounds and surroundings. In addition, one is dispensable only upon doctor’s prescription, while the other may be purchased over-the-counter.

In the Mead Johnson case, the differences between ALACTA and ALASKA are glaring and striking to the eye. Also, ALACTA refers to "Pharmaceutical Preparations which Supply Nutritional Needs," falling under Class 6 of the official classification of Medicines and Pharmaceutical Preparations to be used as prescribed by physicians. On the other hand, ALASKA refers to "Foods and Ingredients of Foods" falling under Class 47, and does not require medical prescription.

In the American Cyanamid case, the word SULMET is distinguishable from the word SULMETINE, as the former is derived from a combination of the syllables "SUL" which is derived from sulfa and "MET" from methyl, both of which are chemical compounds present in the article manufactured by the contending parties. This Court held that the addition of the syllable "INE" in respondent’s label is sufficient to distinguish respondent’s product or trademark from that of petitioner. Also, both products are for medicinal veterinary use and the buyer will be more wary of the nature of the product he is buying. In any case, both products are not identical as SULMET’s label indicates that it is used in a drinking water solution while that of SULMETINE indicates that they are tablets.

It cannot also be said that the products in the above cases can be bought off the shelf except, perhaps, for ALASKA. The said products are not the usual "common and inexpensive" household items which an "undiscerningly rash" buyer would unthinkingly buy.In the case at bar, other than the fact that both Nestle’s and CFC’s products are inexpensive and common household items, the similarity ends there. What is being questioned here is the use by CFC of the trademark MASTER. In view of the difficulty of applying jurisprudential precedents to trademark cases due to the peculiarity of each case, judicial fora should not readily apply a certain test or standard just because of seeming similarities. As this Court has pointed above, there could be more telling differences than similarities as to make a jurisprudential precedent inapplicable.

Nestle points out that the dominancy test should have been applied to determine whether there is a confusing similarity between CFC’s FLAVOR MASTER and Nestle’s MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND.

We agree.

As the Court of Appeals itself has stated, "[t]he determination of whether two trademarks are indeed confusingly similar must be taken from the viewpoint of the ordinary purchasers who are, in general, undiscerningly rash in buying the more common and less expensive household products like coffee, and are therefore less inclined to closely examine specific details of similarities and dissimilarities between competing products."21

The basis for the Court of Appeals’ application of the totality or holistic test is the "ordinary purchaser" buying the product under "normally prevalent conditions in trade" and the attention such products

normally elicit from said ordinary purchaser. An ordinary purchaser or buyer does not usually make such scrutiny nor does he usually have the time to do so. The average shopper is usually in a hurry and does not inspect every product on the shelf as if he were browsing in a library.22

The Court of Appeals held that the test to be applied should be the totality or holistic test reasoning, since what is of paramount consideration is the ordinary purchaser who is, in general, undiscerningly rash in buying the more common and less expensive household products like coffee, and is therefore less inclined to closely examine specific details of similarities and dissimilarities between competing products.

This Court cannot agree with the above reasoning. If the ordinary purchaser is "undiscerningly rash" in buying such common and inexpensive household products as instant coffee, and would therefore be "less inclined to closely examine specific details of similarities and dissimilarities" between the two competing products, then it would be less likely for the ordinary purchaser to notice that CFC’s trademark FLAVOR MASTER carries the colors orange and mocha while that of Nestle’s uses red and brown. The application of the totality or holistic test is improper since the ordinary purchaser would not be inclined to notice the specific features, similarities or dissimilarities, considering that the product is an inexpensive and common household item.

It must be emphasized that the products bearing the trademarks in question are "inexpensive and common" household items bought off the shelf by "undiscerningly rash" purchasers. As such, if the ordinary purchaser is "undiscerningly rash", then he would not have the time nor the inclination to make a keen and perceptive examination of the physical discrepancies in the trademarks of the products in order to exercise his choice.

While this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals’ detailed enumeration of differences between the respective trademarks of the two coffee products, this Court cannot agree that totality test is the one applicable in this case. Rather, this Court believes that the dominancy test is more suitable to this case in light of its peculiar factual milieu.

Moreover, the totality or holistic test is contrary to the elementary postulate of the law on trademarks and unfair competition that confusing similarity is to be determined on the basis of visual, aural, connotative comparisons and overall impressions engendered by the marks in controversy as they are encountered in the realities of the marketplace.23 The totality or holistic test only relies on visual comparison between two trademarks whereas the dominancy test relies not only on the visual but also on the aural and connotative comparisons and overall impressions between the two trademarks.

For this reason, this Court agrees with the BPTTT when it applied the test of dominancy and held that:

From the evidence at hand, it is sufficiently established that the word MASTER is the dominant feature of opposer’s mark. The word MASTER is printed across the middle portion of the label in bold letters almost twice the size of the printed word ROAST. Further, the word MASTER has always been given

emphasis in the TV and radio commercials and other advertisements made in promoting the product. This can be gleaned from the fact that Robert Jaworski and Atty. Ric Puno Jr.., the personalities engaged to promote the product, are given the titles Master of the Game and Master of the Talk Show, respectively. In due time, because of these advertising schemes the mind of the buying public had come to learn to associate the word MASTER with the opposer’s goods.

x x x. It is the observation of this Office that much of the dominance which the word MASTER has acquired through Opposer’s advertising schemes is carried over when the same is incorporated into respondent-applicant’s trademark FLAVOR MASTER. Thus, when one looks at the label bearing the trademark FLAVOR MASTER (Exh. 4) one’s attention is easily attracted to the word MASTER, rather than to the dissimilarities that exist. Therefore, the possibility of confusion as to the goods which bear the competing marks or as to the origins thereof is not farfetched. x x x.24

In addition, the word "MASTER" is neither a generic nor a descriptive term. As such, said term can not be invalidated as a trademark and, therefore, may be legally protected. Generic terms25 are those which constitute "the common descriptive name of an article or substance," or comprise the "genus of which the particular product is a species," or are "commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods," or "imply reference to every member of a genus and the exclusion of individuating characters," or "refer to the basic nature of the wares or services provided rather than to the more idiosyncratic characteristics of a particular product," and are not legally protectable. On the other hand, a term is descriptive26 and therefore invalid as a trademark if, as understood in its normal and natural sense, it "forthwith conveys the characteristics, functions, qualities or ingredients of a product to one who has never seen it and does not know what it is," or "if it forthwith conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods," or if it clearly denotes what goods or services are provided in such a way that the consumer does not have to exercise powers of perception or imagination.

Rather, the term "MASTER" is a suggestive term brought about by the advertising scheme of Nestle. Suggestive terms27 are those which, in the phraseology of one court, require "imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the goods." Such terms, "which subtly connote something about the product," are eligible for protection in the absence of secondary meaning. While suggestive marks are capable of shedding "some light" upon certain characteristics of the goods or services in dispute, they nevertheless involve "an element of incongruity," "figurativeness," or " imaginative effort on the part of the observer."

This is evident from the advertising scheme adopted by Nestle in promoting its coffee products. In this case, Nestle has, over time, promoted its products as "coffee perfection worthy of masters like Robert Jaworski and Ric Puno Jr."

In associating its coffee products with the term "MASTER" and thereby impressing them with the attributes of said term, Nestle advertised its products thus:

Robert Jaworski. Living Legend. A true hard court hero. Fast on his feet. Sure in every shot he makes. A master strategist. In one word, unmatched.

MASTER ROAST. Equally unmatched. Rich and deeply satisfying. Made from a unique combination of the best coffee beans - Arabica for superior taste and aroma, Robusta for strength and body. A masterpiece only NESCAFE, the world’s coffee masters, can create.

MASTER ROAST. Coffee perfection worthy of masters like Robert Jaworski.28

In the art of conversation, Ric Puno Jr. is master. Witty. Well-informed. Confident.

In the art of coffee-making, nothing equals Master Roast, the coffee masterpiece from Nescafe, the world’s coffee masters. A unique combination of the best coffee beans - Arabica for superior taste and aroma, Robusta for strength and body. Truly distinctive and rich in flavor.

Master Roast. Coffee perfection worthy of masters like Ric Puno Jr.29

The term "MASTER", therefore, has acquired a certain connotation to mean the coffee products MASTER ROAST and MASTER BLEND produced by Nestle. As such, the use by CFC of the term "MASTER" in the trademark for its coffee product FLAVOR MASTER is likely to cause confusion or mistake or even to deceive the ordinary purchasers.

In closing, it may not be amiss to quote the case of American Chicle Co. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.,30 to wit:

Why it should have chosen a mark that had long been employed by [plaintiff] and had become known to the trade instead of adopting some other means of identifying its goods is hard to see unless there was a deliberate purpose to obtain some advantage from the trade that [plaintiff] had built up. Indeed, it is generally true that, as soon as we see that a second comer in a market has, for no reason that he can assign, plagiarized the "make-up" of an earlier comer, we need no more; . . . [W]e feel bound to compel him to exercise his ingenuity in quarters further afield.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 24101 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer in Inter Partes Cases Nos. 3200 and 3202 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-63796-97 May 2, 1984

LA CHEMISE LACOSTE, S. A., petitioner,

vs.HON. OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XLIX, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Manila and GOBINDRAM HEMANDAS, respondents.

G.R. No. L-65659 May 2l, 1984

GOBINDRAM HEMANDAS SUJANANI, petitioner, vs.HON. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN, in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry, and HON. CESAR SAN DIEGO, in his capacity as Director of Patents, respondents.

Castillo, Laman, Tan & Pantaleon for petitioners in 63796-97.

Ramon C. Fernandez for private respondent in 63796-97 and petitioner in 65659.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

It is among this Court's concerns that the Philippines should not acquire an unbecoming reputation among the manufacturing and trading centers of the world as a haven for intellectual pirates imitating and illegally profiting from trademarks and tradenames which have established themselves in international or foreign trade.

Before this Court is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed by La Chemise Lacoste, S.A., a well known European manufacturer of clothings and sporting apparels sold in the international market and bearing the trademarks "LACOSTE" "CHEMISE LACOSTE", "CROCODILE DEVICE" and a composite mark consisting of the word "LACOSTE" and a representation of a crocodile/alligator. The petitioner asks us to set aside as null and void, the order of judge Oscar C. Fernandez, of Branch XLIX, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, granting the motion to quash the search warrants previously issued by him and ordering the return of the seized items.

The facts are not seriously disputed. The petitioner is a foreign corporation, organized and existing under the laws of France and not doing business in the Philippines, It is undeniable from the records that it is the actual owner of the abovementioned trademarks used on clothings and other goods specifically sporting apparels sold in many parts of the world and which have been marketed in the Philippines since 1964, The main basis of the private respondent's case is its claim of alleged prior registration.

In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a duly licensed domestic firm applied for and was issued Reg. No. SR-2225 (SR stands for Supplemental Register) for the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE" by the Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts, sportswear and other garment products of the company.

Two years later, it applied for the registration of the same trademark under the Principal Register. The Patent Office eventually issued an order dated March 3, 1977 which states that:

xxx xxx xxx

... Considering that the mark was already registered in the Supplemental Register in favor of herein applicant, the Office has no other recourse but to allow the application, however, Reg. No. SR-2225 is now being contested in a Petition for Cancellation docketed as IPC No. 1046, still registrant is presumed to be the owner of the mark until after the registration is declared cancelled.

Thereafter, Hemandas & Co. assigned to respondent Gobindram Hemandas all rights, title, and interest in the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & DEVICE".

On November 21, 1980, the petitioner filed its application for registration of the trademark "Crocodile Device" (Application Serial No. 43242) and "Lacoste" (Application Serial No. 43241).The former was approved for publication while the latter was opposed by Games and Garments in Inter Partes Case No. 1658. In 1982, the petitioner filed a Petition for the Cancellation of Reg. No. SR-2225 docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 1689. Both cases have now been considered by this Court in Hemandas v. Hon. Roberto Ongpin (G.R. No. 65659).

On March 21, 1983, the petitioner filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a letter-complaint alleging therein the acts of unfair competition being committed by Hemandas and requesting their assistance in his apprehension and prosecution. The NBI conducted an investigation and subsequently filed with the respondent court two applications for the issuance of search warrants which would authorize the search of the premises used and occupied by the Lacoste Sports Center and Games and Garments both owned and operated by Hemandas.

The respondent court issued Search Warrant Nos. 83-128 and 83-129 for violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code, "it appearing to the satisfaction of the judge after examining under oath applicant and his witnesses that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Gobindram Hemandas ... has in his control and possession in his premises the ... properties subject of the offense," (Rollo, pp. 67 and 69) The NBI agents executed the two search warrants and as a result of the search found and seized various goods and articles described in the warrants.

Hemandas filed a motion to quash the search warrants alleging that the trademark used by him was different from petitioner's trademark and that pending the resolution of IPC No. 1658 before the Patent Office, any criminal or civil action on the same subject matter and between the same parties would be premature.

The petitioner filed its opposition to the motion arguing that the motion to quash was fatally defective as it cited no valid ground for the quashal of the search warrants and that the grounds alleged in the motion were absolutely without merit. The State Prosecutor likewise filed his opposition on the grounds

that the goods seized were instrument of a crime and necessary for the resolution of the case on preliminary investigation and that the release of the said goods would be fatal to the case of the People should prosecution follow in court.

The respondent court was, however, convinced that there was no probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrants. Thus, in its order dated March 22, 1983, the search warrants were recalled and set aside and the NBI agents or officers in custody of the seized items were ordered to return the same to Hemandas. (Rollo, p. 25)

The petitioner anchors the present petition on the following issues:

Did respondent judge act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction,

(i) in reversing the finding of probable cause which he himself had made in issuing the search warrants, upon allegations which are matters of defense and as such can be raised and resolved only upon trial on the merits; and

(ii) in finding that the issuance of the search warrants is premature in the face of the fact that (a) Lacoste's registration of the subject trademarks is still pending with the Patent Office with opposition from Hemandas; and (b) the subject trademarks had been earlier registered by Hemandas in his name in the Supplemental Register of the Philippine Patent Office?

Respondent, on the other hand, centers his arguments on the following issues:

I

THE PETITIONER HAS NO CAPACITY TO SUE BEFORE PHILIPPINE COURTS.

II

THE RESPONDENT JUDGE DID NOT COMMIT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ORDER DATED APRIL 22, 1983.

Hemandas argues in his comment on the petition for certiorari that the petitioner being a foreign corporation failed to allege essential facts bearing upon its capacity to sue before Philippine courts. He states that not only is the petitioner not doing business in the Philippines but it also is not licensed to do business in the Philippines. He also cites the case of Leviton Industries v. Salvador (114 SCRA 420) to support his contention The Leviton case, however, involved a complaint for unfair competition under Section 21-A of Republic Act No. 166 which provides:

Sec. 21 — A. Any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a mark or tradename has been registered or assigned under this Act may bring an action hereunder for infringement, for unfair

competition, or false designation of origin and false description, whether or not it has been licensed to do business in the Philippines under Act numbered Fourteen Hundred and Fifty-Nine, as amended, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, at the time it brings the complaint; Provided, That the country of which the said foreign corporation or juristic person is a citizen, or in which it is domiciled, by treaty, convention or law, grants a similar privilege to corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines.

We held that it was not enough for Leviton, a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, United States of America, to merely allege that it is a foreign corporation. It averred in Paragraph 2 of its complaint that its action was being filed under the provisions of Section 21-A of Republic Act No. 166, as amended. Compliance with the requirements imposed by the abovecited provision was necessary because Section 21-A of Republic Act No. 166 having explicitly laid down certain conditions in a specific proviso, the same must be expressly averred before a successful prosecution may ensue. It is therefore, necessary for the foreign corporation to comply with these requirements or aver why it should be exempted from them, if such was the case. The foreign corporation may have the right to sue before Philippine courts, but our rules on pleadings require that the qualifying circumstances necessary for the assertion of such right should first be affirmatively pleaded.

In contradistinction, the present case involves a complaint for violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. The Leviton case is not applicable.

Asserting a distinctly different position from the Leviton argument, Hemandas argued in his brief that the petitioner was doing business in the Philippines but was not licensed to do so. To support this argument, he states that the applicable ruling is the case of Mentholatum Co., Inc. v. Mangaliman: (72 Phil. 524) where Mentholatum Co. Inc., a foreign corporation and Philippine-American Drug Co., the former's exclusive distributing agent in the Philippines filed a complaint for infringement of trademark and unfair competition against the Mangalimans.

The argument has no merit. The Mentholatum case is distinct from and inapplicable to the case at bar. Philippine American Drug Co., Inc., was admittedly selling products of its principal Mentholatum Co., Inc., in the latter's name or for the latter's account. Thus, this Court held that "whatever transactions the Philippine-American Drug Co., Inc. had executed in view of the law, the Mentholatum Co., Inc., did it itself. And, the Mentholatum Co., Inc., being a foreign doing business in the Philippines without the license required by Section 68 of the Corporation Law, it may not prosecute this action for violation of trademark and unfair competition."

In the present case, however, the petitioner is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines. The marketing of its products in the Philippines is done through an exclusive distributor, Rustan Commercial Corporation The latter is an independent entity which buys and then markets not only products of the petitioner but also many other products bearing equally well-known and established trademarks and tradenames. in other words, Rustan is not a mere agent or conduit of the petitioner.

The rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Investments pursuant to its rule-making power under Presidential Decree No. 1789, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investment Code, support a finding that the petitioner is not doing business in the Philippines. Rule I, Sec. 1 (g) of said rules and regulations defines "doing business" as one" which includes, inter alia:

(1) ... A foreign firm which does business through middlemen acting on their own names, such as indentors, commercial brokers or commission merchants, shall not be deemed doing business in the Philippines. But such indentors, commercial brokers or commission merchants shall be the ones deemed to be doing business in the Philippines.

(2) Appointing a representative or distributor who is domiciled in the Philippines, unless said representative or distributor has an independent status, i.e., it transacts business in its name and for its account, and not in the name or for the account of a principal Thus, where a foreign firm is represented by a person or local company which does not act in its name but in the name of the foreign firm the latter is doing business in the Philippines.

xxx xxx xxx

Applying the above provisions to the facts of this case, we find and conclude that the petitioner is not doing business in the Philippines. Rustan is actually a middleman acting and transacting business in its own name and or its own account and not in the name or for the account of the petitioner.

But even assuming the truth of the private respondent's allegation that the petitioner failed to allege material facts in its petition relative to capacity to sue, the petitioner may still maintain the present suit against respondent Hemandas. As early as 1927, this Court was, and it still is, of the view that a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines needs no license to sue before Philippine courts for infringement of trademark and unfair competition. Thus, in Western Equipment and Supply Co. v. Reyes (51 Phil. 115), this Court held that a foreign corporation which has never done any business in the Philippines and which is unlicensed and unregistered to do business here, but is widely and favorably known in the Philippines through the use therein of its products bearing its corporate and tradename, has a legal right to maintain an action in the Philippines to restrain the residents and inhabitants thereof from organizing a corporation therein bearing the same name as the foreign corporation, when it appears that they have personal knowledge of the existence of such a foreign corporation, and it is apparent that the purpose of the proposed domestic corporation is to deal and trade in the same goods as those of the foreign corporation.

We further held:

xxx xxx xxx

... That company is not here seeking to enforce any legal or control rights arising from, or growing out of, any business which it has transacted in the Philippine Islands. The sole purpose of the action:

Is to protect its reputation, its corporate name, its goodwill, whenever that reputation, corporate name or goodwill have, through the natural development of its trade, established themselves.' And it contends that its rights to the use of its corporate and trade name:

Is a property right, a right in rem, which it may assert and protect against all the world, in any of the courts of the world-even in jurisdictions where it does not transact business-just the same as it may protect its tangible property, real or personal, against trespass, or conversion. Citing sec. 10, Nims on Unfair Competition and TradeMarks and cases cited; secs. 21-22, Hopkins on TradeMarks, Trade Names and Unfair Competition and cases cited.' That point is sustained by the authorities, and is well stated in Hanover Star Mining Co. v. Allen and Wheeler Co. (208 Fed., 513). in which the syllabus says:

Since it is the trade and not the mark that is to be protected, a trade-mark acknowledges no territorial boundaries of municipalities or states or nations, but extends to every market where the trader's goods have become known and Identified by the use of the mark.

Our recognizing the capacity of the petitioner to sue is not by any means novel or precedent setting. Our jurisprudence is replete with cases illustrating instances when foreign corporations not doing business in the Philippines may nonetheless sue in our courts. In East Board Navigation Ltd, v. Ysmael and Co., Inc. (102 Phil. 1), we recognized a right of foreign corporation to sue on isolated transactions. In General Garments Corp. v. Director of Patents (41 SCRA 50), we sustained the right of Puritan Sportswear Corp., a foreign corporation not licensed to do and not doing business in the Philippines, to file a petition for cancellation of a trademark before the Patent Office.

More important is the nature of the case which led to this petition. What preceded this petition for certiorari was a letter complaint filed before the NBI charging Hemandas with a criminal offense, i.e., violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. If prosecution follows after the completion of the preliminary investigation being conducted by the Special Prosecutor the information shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines and no longer the petitioner which is only an aggrieved party since a criminal offense is essentially an act against the State. It is the latter which is principally the injured party although there is a private right violated. Petitioner's capacity to sue would become, therefore, of not much significance in the main case. We cannot snow a possible violator of our criminal statutes to escape prosecution upon a far-fetched contention that the aggrieved party or victim of a crime has no standing to sue.

In upholding the right of the petitioner to maintain the present suit before our courts for unfair competition or infringement of trademarks of a foreign corporation, we are moreover recognizing our duties and the rights of foreign states under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property to which the Philippines and France are parties. We are simply interpreting and enforcing a solemn international commitment of the Philippines embodied in a multilateral treaty to which we are a party and which we entered into because it is in our national interest to do so.

The Paris Convention provides in part that:

ARTICLE 1

(1) The countries to which the present Convention applies constitute themselves into a Union for the protection of industrial property.

(2) The protection of industrial property is concerned with patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks service marks, trade names, and indications of source or appellations of origin, and the repression of unfair competition.

xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE 2

(2) Nationals of each of the countries of the Union shall as regards the protection of industrial property, enjoy in all the other countries of the Union the advantages that their respective laws now grant, or may hereafter grant, to nationals, without prejudice to the rights specially provided by the present Convention. Consequently, they shall have the same protection as the latter, and the same legal remedy against any infringement of their rights, provided they observe the conditions and formalities imposed upon nationals.

xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE 6

(1) The countries of the Union undertake, either administratively if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration and to prohibit the use of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, imitation or translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well-known in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of the present Convention and used for Identical or similar goods. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well-known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith.

xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE 8

A trade name shall be protected in all the countries of the Union without the obligation of filing or registration, whether or not it forms part of a trademark.

xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE 10bis

(1) The countries of the Union are bound to assure to persons entitled to the benefits of the Union effective protection against unfair competition.

xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE 10ter

(1) The countries of the Union undertake to assure to nationals of the other countries of the Union appropriate legal remedies to repress effectively all the acts referred to in Articles 9, 10 and l0bis.

(2) They undertake, further, to provide measures to permit syndicates and associations which represent the industrialists, producers or traders concerned and the existence of which is not contrary to the laws of their countries, to take action in the Courts or before the administrative authorities, with a view to the repression of the acts referred to in Articles 9, 10 and 10bis, in so far as the law of the country in which protection is claimed allows such action by the syndicates and associations of that country.

xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE 17

Every country party to this Convention undertakes to adopt, in accordance with its constitution, the measures necessary to ensure the application of this Convention.

It is understood that at the time an instrument of ratification or accession is deposited on behalf of a country; such country will be in a position under its domestic law to give effect to the provisions of this Convention. (61 O.G. 8010)

xxx xxx xxx

In Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T Eaton Co. (234 F. 2d 633) the United States Circuit Court of Appeals had occasion to comment on the extraterritorial application of the Paris Convention It said that:

[11] The International Convention is essentially a compact between the various member countries to accord in their own countries to citizens of the other contracting parties trademark and other rights comparable to those accorded their own citizens by their domestic law. The underlying principle is that foreign nationals should be given the same treatment in each of the member countries as that country makes available to its own citizens. In addition, the Convention sought to create uniformity in certain

respects by obligating each member nation 'to assure to nationals of countries of the Union an effective protection against unfair competition.'

[12] The Convention is not premised upon the Idea that the trade-mark and related laws of each member nation shall be given extra-territorial application, but on exactly the converse principle that each nation's law shall have only territorial application. Thus a foreign national of a member nation using his trademark in commerce in the United States is accorded extensive protection here against infringement and other types of unfair competition by virtue of United States membership in the Convention. But that protection has its source in, and is subject to the limitations of, American law, not the law of the foreign national's own country. ...

By the same token, the petitioner should be given the same treatment in the Philippines as we make available to our own citizens. We are obligated to assure to nationals of "countries of the Union" an effective protection against unfair competition in the same way that they are obligated to similarly protect Filipino citizens and firms.

Pursuant to this obligation, the Ministry of Trade on November 20, 1980 issued a memorandum addressed to the Director of the Patents Office directing the latter:

xxx xxx xxx

... to reject all pending applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world famous trademarks by applicants other than its original owners or users.

The conflicting claims over internationally known trademarks involve such name brands as Lacoste, Jordache, Gloria Vanderbilt, Sasson, Fila, Pierre Cardin, Gucci, Christian Dior, Oscar de la Renta, Calvin Klein, Givenchy, Ralph Lauren, Geoffrey Beene, Lanvin and Ted Lapidus.

It is further directed that, in cases where warranted, Philippine registrants of such trademarks should be asked to surrender their certificates of registration, if any, to avoid suits for damages and other legal action by the trademarks' foreign or local owners or original users.

The memorandum is a clear manifestation of our avowed adherence to a policy of cooperation and amity with all nations. It is not, as wrongly alleged by the private respondent, a personal policy of Minister Luis Villafuerte which expires once he leaves the Ministry of Trade. For a treaty or convention is not a mere moral obligation to be enforced or not at the whims of an incumbent head of a Ministry. It creates a legally binding obligation on the parties founded on the generally accepted principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda which has been adopted as part of the law of our land. (Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 3). The memorandum reminds the Director of Patents of his legal duty to obey both law and treaty. It must also be obeyed.

Hemandas further contends that the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned order of April 22, 1983.

A review of the grounds invoked by Hemandas in his motion to quash the search warrants reveals the fact that they are not appropriate for quashing a warrant. They are matters of defense which should be ventilated during the trial on the merits of the case. For instance, on the basis of the facts before the Judge, we fail to understand how he could treat a bare allegation that the respondent's trademark is different from the petitioner's trademark as a sufficient basis to grant the motion to quash. We will treat the issue of prejudicial question later. Granting that respondent Hemandas was only trying to show the absence of probable cause, we, nonetheless, hold the arguments to be untenable.

As a mandatory requirement for the issuance of a valid search warrant, the Constitution requires in no uncertain terms the determination of probable cause by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce (Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3). Probable cause has traditionally meant such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance thereof (People v. Sy Juco, 64 Phil. 667).

This concept of probable cause was amplified and modified by our ruling in Stonehill v. Diokno, (20 SCRA 383) that probable cause "presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws."

The question of whether or not probable cause exists is one which must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations (Central Bank v. Morfe, 20 SCRA 507). We agree that there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of the existence of probable cause since, as we have recognized in Luna v. Plaza (26 SCRA 310), the existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. However, the findings of the judge should not disregard the facts before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason. More so it is plain that our country's ability to abide by international commitments is at stake.

The records show that the NBI agents at the hearing of the application for the warrants before respondent court presented three witnesses under oath, sworn statements, and various exhibits in the form of clothing apparels manufactured by Hemandas but carrying the trademark Lacoste. The respondent court personally interrogated Ramon Esguerra, Samuel Fiji, and Mamerto Espatero by means of searching questions. After hearing the testimonies and examining the documentary evidence, the respondent court was convinced that there were good and sufficient reasons for the issuance of the warrant. And it then issued the warrant.

The respondent court, therefore, complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. At that point in time, it was fully convinced that there existed probable cause. But after hearing the motion to quash and the oppositions thereto, the respondent

court executed a complete turnabout and declared that there was no probable cause to justify its earlier issuance of the warrants.

True, the lower court should be given the opportunity to correct its errors, if there be any, but the rectification must, as earlier stated be based on sound and valid grounds. In this case, there was no compelling justification for the about face. The allegation that vital facts were deliberately suppressed or concealed by the petitioner should have been assessed more carefully because the object of the quashal was the return of items already seized and easily examined by the court. The items were alleged to be fake and quite obviously would be needed as evidence in the criminal prosecution. Moreover, an application for a search warrant is heard ex parte. It is neither a trial nor a part of the trial. Action on these applications must be expedited for time is of the essence. Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to the testimonies under oath of the complainant and the witnesses. The allegation of Hemandas that the applicant withheld information from the respondent court was clearly no basis to order the return of the seized items.

Hemandas relied heavily below and before us on the argument that it is the holder of a certificate of registration of the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE". Significantly, such registration is only in the Supplemental Register.

A certificate of registration in the Supplemental Register is not prima facie evidence of the validity of registration, of the registrant's exclusive right to use the same in connection with the goods, business, or services specified in the certificate. Such a certificate of registration cannot be filed, with effect, with the Bureau of Customs in order to exclude from the Philippines, foreign goods bearing infringement marks or trade names (Rule 124, Revised Rules of Practice Before the Phil. Pat. Off. in Trademark Cases; Martin, Philippine Commercial Laws, 1981, Vol. 2, pp. 513-515).

Section 19-A of Republic Act 166 as amended not only provides for the keeping of the supplemental register in addition to the principal register but specifically directs that:

xxx xxx xxx

The certificates of registration for marks and trade names registered on the supplemental register shall be conspicuously different from certificates issued for marks and trade names on the principal register.

xxx xxx xxx

The reason is explained by a leading commentator on Philippine Commercial Laws:

The registration of a mark upon the supplemental register is not, as in the case of the principal register, prima facie evidence of (1) the validity of registration; (2) registrant's ownership of the mark; and (3) registrant's exclusive right to use the mark. It is not subject to opposition, although it may be cancelled after its issuance. Neither may it be the subject of interference proceedings. Registration on the

supplemental register is not constructive notice of registrant's claim of ownership. A supplemental register is provided for the registration of marks which are not registrable on the principal register because of some defects (conversely, defects which make a mark unregistrable on the principal register, yet do not bar them from the supplemental register.) (Agbayani, II Commercial Laws of the Philippines, 1978, p. 514, citing Uy Hong Mo v. Titay & Co., et al., Dec. No. 254 of Director of Patents, Apr. 30, 1963);

Registration in the Supplemental Register, therefore, serves as notice that the registrant is using or has appropriated the trademark. By the very fact that the trademark cannot as yet be entered in the Principal Register, all who deal with it should be on guard that there are certain defects, some obstacles which the user must Still overcome before he can claim legal ownership of the mark or ask the courts to vindicate his claims of an exclusive right to the use of the same. It would be deceptive for a party with nothing more than a registration in the Supplemental Register to posture before courts of justice as if the registration is in the Principal Register.

The reliance of the private respondent on the last sentence of the Patent office action on application Serial No. 30954 that "registrant is presumed to be the owner of the mark until after the registration is declared cancelled" is, therefore, misplaced and grounded on shaky foundation, The supposed presumption not only runs counter to the precept embodied in Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine Patent Office in Trademark Cases but considering all the facts ventilated before us in the four interrelated petitions involving the petitioner and the respondent, it is devoid of factual basis. And even in cases where presumption and precept may factually be reconciled, we have held that the presumption is rebuttable, not conclusive, (People v. Lim Hoa, G.R. No. L10612, May 30, 1958, Unreported). One may be declared an unfair competitor even if his competing trademark is registered (Parke, Davis & Co. v. Kiu Foo & Co., et al., 60 Phil. 928; La Yebana Co. v. Chua Seco & Co., 14 Phil. 534).

By the same token, the argument that the application was premature in view of the pending case before the Patent Office is likewise without legal basis.

The proceedings pending before the Patent Office involving IPC Co. 1658 do not partake of the nature of a prejudicial question which must first be definitely resolved.

Section 5 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court provides that:

A petition for the suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a pre-judicial question in a civil case, may only be presented by any party before or during the trial of the criminal action.

The case which suspends the criminal prosecution must be a civil case which is determinative of the innocence or, subject to the availability of other defenses, the guilt of the accused. The pending case before the Patent Office is an administrative proceeding and not a civil case. The decision of the Patent Office cannot be finally determinative of the private respondent's innocence of the charges against him.

In Flordelis v. Castillo (58 SCRA 301), we held that:

As clearly delineated in the aforecited provisions of the new Civil Code and the Rules of Court, and as uniformly applied in numerous decisions of this Court, (Berbari v. Concepcion, 40 Phil. 837 (1920); Aleria v. Mendoza, 83 Phil. 427 (1949); People v. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357 (1954); Brito-Sy v. Malate Taxicab & Garage, Inc., 102 Phil 482 (1957); Mendiola v. Macadael, 1 SCRA 593; Benitez v. Concepcion, 2 SCRA 178; Zapante v. Montesa, 4 SCRA 510; Jimenez v. Averia, 22 SCRA 1380.) In Buenaventura v. Ocampo (55 SCRA 271) the doctrine of prejudicial question was held inapplicable because no criminal case but merely an administrative case and a civil suit were involved. The Court, however, held that, in view of the peculiar circumstances of that case, the respondents' suit for damages in the lower court was premature as it was filed during the pendency of an administrative case against the respondents before the POLCOM. 'The possibility cannot be overlooked,' said the Court, 'that the POLCOM may hand down a decision adverse to the respondents, in which case the damage suit will become unfounded and baseless for wanting in cause of action.') the doctrine of pre-judicial question comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action both penned and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.

In the present case, no civil action pends nor has any been instituted. What was pending was an administrative case before the Patent Office.

Even assuming that there could be an administrative proceeding with exceptional or special circumstances which render a criminal prosecution premature pending the promulgation of the administrative decision, no such peculiar circumstances are present in this case.

Moreover, we take note of the action taken by the Patents Office and the Minister of Trade and affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court in the case of La Chemise Lacoste S. A. v. Ram Sadhwani (AC-G.R. No. SP-13356, June 17, 1983).

The same November 20, 1980 memorandum of the Minister of Trade discussed in this decision was involved in the appellate court's decision. The Minister as the "implementing authority" under Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the protection of Industrial Property instructed the Director of Patents to reject applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world famous trademarks by applicants other than its original owners or users. The brand "Lacoste" was specifically cited together with Jordache, Gloria Vanderbilt, Sasson, Fila, Pierre Cardin, Gucci, Christian Dior, Oscar dela Renta, Calvin Klein, Givenchy, Ralph Laurence, Geoffrey Beene, Lanvin, and Ted Lapidus. The Director of Patents was likewise ordered to require Philippine registrants of such trademarks to surrender their certificates of registration. Compliance by the Director of Patents was challenged.

The Intermediate Appellate Court, in the La Chemise Lacoste S.A. v. Sadhwani decision which we cite with approval sustained the power of the Minister of Trade to issue the implementing memorandum and, after going over the evidence in the records, affirmed the decision of the Director of Patents

declaring La Chemise Lacoste &A. the owner of the disputed trademark and crocodile or alligator device. The Intermediate Appellate Court speaking through Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza stated:

In the case at bar, the Minister of Trade, as 'the competent authority of the country of registration,' has found that among other well-known trademarks 'Lacoste' is the subject of conflicting claims. For this reason, applications for its registration must be rejected or refused, pursuant to the treaty obligation of the Philippines.

Apart from this finding, the annexes to the opposition, which La Chemise Lacoste S.A. filed in the Patent Office, show that it is the owner of the trademark 'Lacoste' and the device consisting of a representation of a crocodile or alligator by the prior adoption and use of such mark and device on clothing, sports apparel and the like. La Chemise Lacoste S.A, obtained registration of these mark and device and was in fact issued renewal certificates by the French National Industry Property Office.

xxx xxx xxx

Indeed, due process is a rule of reason. In the case at bar the order of the Patent Office is based not only on the undisputed fact of ownership of the trademark by the appellee but on a prior determination by the Minister of Trade, as the competent authority under the Paris Convention, that the trademark and device sought to be registered by the appellant are well-known marks which the Philippines, as party to the Convention, is bound to protect in favor of its owners. it would be to exalt form over substance to say that under the circumstances, due process requires that a hearing should be held before the application is acted upon.

The appellant cites section 9 of Republic Act No. 166, which requires notice and hearing whenever an opposition to the registration of a trademark is made. This provision does not apply, however, to situations covered by the Paris Convention, where the appropriate authorities have determined that a well-known trademark is already that of another person. In such cases, the countries signatories to the Convention are obliged to refuse or to cancel the registration of the mark by any other person or authority. In this case, it is not disputed that the trademark Lacoste is such a well-known mark that a hearing, such as that provided in Republic Act No. 166, would be superfluous.

The issue of due process was raised and fully discussed in the appellate court's decision. The court ruled that due process was not violated.

In the light of the foregoing it is quite plain that the prejudicial question argument is without merit.

We have carefully gone over the records of all the cases filed in this Court and find more than enough evidence to sustain a finding that the petitioner is the owner of the trademarks "LACOSTE", "CHEMISE LACOSTE", the crocodile or alligator device, and the composite mark of LACOSTE and the representation of the crocodile or alligator. Any pretensions of the private respondent that he is the owner are

absolutely without basis. Any further ventilation of the issue of ownership before the Patent Office will be a superfluity and a dilatory tactic.

The issue of whether or not the trademark used by the private respondent is different from the petitioner's trade mark is a matter of defense and will be better resolved in the criminal proceedings before a court of justice instead of raising it as a preliminary matter in an administrative proceeding.

The purpose of the law protecting a trademark cannot be overemphasized. They are to point out distinctly the origin or ownership of the article to which it is affixed, to secure to him, who has been instrumental in bringing into market a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill, and to prevent fraud and imposition (Etepha v. Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495).

The legislature has enacted laws to regulate the use of trademarks and provide for the protection thereof. Modern trade and commerce demands that depredations on legitimate trade marks of non-nationals including those who have not shown prior registration thereof should not be countenanced. The law against such depredations is not only for the protection of the owner of the trademark but also, and more importantly, for the protection of purchasers from confusion, mistake, or deception as to the goods they are buying. (Asari Yoko Co., Ltd. v. Kee Boc, 1 SCRA 1; General Garments Corporation v. Director of Patents, 41 SCRA 50).

The law on trademarks and tradenames is based on the principle of business integrity and common justice' This law, both in letter and spirit, is laid upon the premise that, while it encourages fair trade in every way and aims to foster, and not to hamper, competition, no one, especially a trader, is justified in damaging or jeopardizing another's business by fraud, deceipt, trickery or unfair methods of any sort. This necessarily precludes the trading by one dealer upon the good name and reputation built up by another (Baltimore v. Moses, 182 Md 229, 34 A (2d) 338).

The records show that the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner's products bearing the trademark LACOSTE date back even before 1964 when LACOSTE clothing apparels were first marketed in the Philippines. To allow Hemandas to continue using the trademark Lacoste for the simple reason that he was the first registrant in the Supplemental Register of a trademark used in international commerce and not belonging to him is to render nugatory the very essence of the law on trademarks and tradenames.

We now proceed to the consideration of the petition in Gobindram Hemandas Suianani u. Hon. Roberto V Ongpin, et al. (G.R. No. 65659).

Actually, three other petitions involving the same trademark and device have been filed with this Court.

In Hemandas & Co. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (G.R. No. 63504) the petitioner asked for the following relief:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed (a) that the Resolutions of the respondent Court of January 3, 1983 and February 24, 1983 be nullified; and that the Decision of the same respondent Court of June 30, 1983 be declared to be the law on the matter; (b) that the Director of Patents be directed to issue the corresponding registration certificate in the Principal Register; and (c) granting upon the petitioner such other legal and equitable remedies as are justified by the premises.

On December 5, 1983, we issued the following resolution:

Considering the allegations contained, issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition for review, the respondent's comment thereon, and petitioner's reply to said comment, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

The Court further Resolved to CALL the attention of the Philippine Patent Office to the pendency in this Court of G.R. No. 563796-97 entitled 'La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Hon. Oscar C. Fernandez and Gobindram Hemandas' which was given due course on June 14, 1983 and to the fact that G.R. No. 63928-29 entitled 'Gobindram Hemandas v. La Chemise Lacoste, S.A., et al.' filed on May 9, 1983 was dismissed for lack of merit on September 12, 1983. Both petitions involve the same dispute over the use of the trademark 'Chemise Lacoste'.

The second case of Gobindram Hemandas vs. La Chemise Lacoste, S.A., et al. (G.R. No. 63928-29) prayed for the following:

I. On the petition for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction, an order be issued after due hearing:

l. Enjoining and restraining respondents Company, attorneys-in-fact, and Estanislao Granados from further proceedings in the unfair competition charges pending with the Ministry of Justice filed against petitioner;

2. Enjoining and restraining respondents Company and its attorneys-in-fact from causing undue publication in newspapers of general circulation on their unwarranted claim that petitioner's products are FAKE pending proceedings hereof; and

3. Enjoining and restraining respondents Company and its attorneys-in-fact from sending further threatening letters to petitioner's customers unjustly stating that petitioner's products they are dealing in are FAKE and threatening them with confiscation and seizure thereof.

II. On the main petition, judgment be rendered:

l. Awarding and granting the issuance of the Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting, stopping, and restraining respondents from further committing the acts complained of;

2. Awarding and granting the issuance of the Writ of Mandamus, ordering and compelling respondents National Bureau of Investigation, its aforenamed agents, and State Prosecutor Estanislao Granados to immediately comply with the Order of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XLIX, Manila, dated April 22, 1983, which directs the immediate return of the seized items under Search Warrants Nos. 83-128 and 83-129;

3. Making permanent any writ of injunction that may have been previously issued by this Honorable Court in the petition at bar: and

4. Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and equitable in the premises.

As earlier stated, this petition was dismissed for lack of merit on September 12, 1983. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, the Court on November 23, 1983 resolved to deny the motion for lack of merit and declared the denial to be final.

Hemandas v. Hon. Roberto Ongpin (G.R. No. 65659) is the third petition.

In this last petition, the petitioner prays for the setting aside as null and void and for the prohibiting of the enforcement of the following memorandum of respondent Minister Roberto Ongpin:

MEMORANDUM:

FOR: THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

Philippine Patent Office

xxx xxx xxx

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 913 dated 7 October 1983 which strengthens the rule-making and adjudicatory powers of the Minister of Trade and Industry and provides inter alia, that 'such rule-making and adjudicatory powers should be revitalized in order that the Minister of Trade and Industry can ...apply more swift and effective solutions and remedies to old and new problems ... such as the infringement of internationally-known tradenames and trademarks ...'and in view of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in the case of LA CHEMISE LACOSTE, S.A., versus RAM SADWHANI [AC-G.R. Sp. No. 13359 (17) June 1983] which affirms the validity of the MEMORANDUM of then Minister Luis R. Villafuerte dated 20 November 1980 confirming our obligations under the PARIS CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY to which the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory, you are hereby directed to implement measures necessary to effect compliance with our obligations under said convention in general, and, more specifically, to honor our commitment under Section 6 bis thereof, as follows:

1. Whether the trademark under consideration is well-known in the Philippines or is a mark already belonging to a person entitled to the benefits of the CONVENTION, this should be established, pursuant to Philippine Patent Office procedures in inter partes and ex parte cases, according to any of the following criteria or any combination thereof:

(a) a declaration by the Minister of Trade and Industry that' the trademark being considered is already well-known in the Philippines such that permission for its use by other than its original owner will constitute a reproduction, imitation, translation or other infringement;

(b) that the trademark is used in commerce internationally, supported by proof that goods bearing the trademark are sold on an international scale, advertisements, the establishment of factories, sales offices, distributorships, and the like, in different countries, including volume or other measure of international trade and commerce;

(c) that the trademark is duly registered in the industrial property office(s) of another country or countries, taking into consideration the dates of such registration;

(d) that the trademark has been long established and obtained goodwill and general international consumer recognition as belonging to one owner or source;

(e) that the trademark actually belongs to a party claiming ownership and has the right to registration under the provisions of the aforestated PARIS CONVENTION.

2. The word trademark, as used in this MEMORANDUM, shall include tradenames, service marks, logos, signs, emblems, insignia or other similar devices used for Identification and recognition by consumers.

3. The Philippine Patent Office shall refuse all applications for, or cancel the registration of, trademarks which constitute a reproduction, translation or imitation of a trademark owned by a person, natural or corporate, who is a citizen of a country signatory to the PARIS CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.

4. The Philippine Patent Office shall give due course to the Opposition in cases already or hereafter filed against the registration of trademarks entitled to protection of Section 6 bis of said PARIS CONVENTION as outlined above, by remanding applications filed by one not entitled to such protection for final disallowance by the Examination Division.

5. All pending applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world famous trademarks filed by applicants other than their original owners or users shall be rejected forthwith. Where such applicants have already obtained registration contrary to the abovementioned PARIS CONVENTION and/or Philippine Law, they shall be directed to surrender their Certificates of Registration to the Philippine Patent Office for immediate cancellation proceedings.

6. Consistent with the foregoing, you are hereby directed to expedite the hearing and to decide without delay the following cases pending before your Office:

1. INTER PARTES CASE NO. 1689-Petition filed by La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. for the cancellation of Certificate of Registration No. SR-2225 issued to Gobindram Hemandas, assignee of Hemandas and Company;

2. INTER PARTES CASE NO. 1658-Opposition filed by Games and Garments Co. against the registration of the trademark Lacoste sought by La Chemise Lacoste, S.A.;

3. INTER PARTES CASE NO. 1786-Opposition filed by La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. against the registration of trademark Crocodile Device and Skiva sought by one Wilson Chua.

Considering our discussions in G.R. Nos. 63796-97, we find the petition in G.R. No. 65659 to be patently without merit and accordingly deny it due course.

In complying with the order to decide without delay the cases specified in the memorandum, the Director of Patents shall limit himself to the ascertainment of facts in issues not resolved by this decision and apply the law as expounded by this Court to those facts.

One final point. It is essential that we stress our concern at the seeming inability of law enforcement officials to stem the tide of fake and counterfeit consumer items flooding the Philippine market or exported abroad from our country. The greater victim is not so much the manufacturer whose product is being faked but the Filipino consuming public and in the case of exportations, our image abroad. No less than the President, in issuing Executive Order No. 913 dated October 7, 1983 to strengthen the powers of the Minister of Trade and Industry for the protection of consumers, stated that, among other acts, the dumping of substandard, imitated, hazardous, and cheap goods, the infringement of internationally known tradenames and trademarks, and the unfair trade practices of business firms has reached such proportions as to constitute economic sabotage. We buy a kitchen appliance, a household tool, perfume, face powder, other toilet articles, watches, brandy or whisky, and items of clothing like jeans, T-shirts, neck, ties, etc. — the list is quite length — and pay good money relying on the brand name as guarantee of its quality and genuine nature only to explode in bitter frustration and genuine nature on helpless anger because the purchased item turns out to be a shoddy imitation, albeit a clever looking counterfeit, of the quality product. Judges all over the country are well advised to remember that court processes should not be used as instruments to, unwittingly or otherwise, aid counterfeiters and intellectual pirates, tie the hands of the law as it seeks to protect the Filipino consuming public and frustrate executive and administrative implementation of solemn commitments pursuant to international conventions and treaties.

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. NOS. 63797-97 is hereby GRANTED. The order dated April 22, 1983 of the respondent regional trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Our Temporary Restraining Order dated

April 29, 1983 is ma(i.e. PERMANENT. The petition in G.R. NO. 65659 is DENIED due course for lack of merit. Our Temporary Restraining Order dated December 5, 1983 is LIFTED and SET ASIDE, effective immediately.

G.R. No. L-30266 June 29, 1984

UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORARION, EDWARDSON MANUFACTURING CO., INC. AND HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, respondents.

Marcial O.T. Balgos for petitioner.

Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo for private respondents.

GUERRERO, J.:

This petition for review concerns a "subpoena duces tecum which was issued by the trial court against the treasurer of the herein petitioner, the propriety of which was upheld by the defunct Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court).

The facts of this case as stated in the decision of the then Court of Appeals are as follows:

Records disclose that the two respondent corporations herein sued the present petitioner before the Court of First Instance of Rizal for unfair competition with damages and attorney's fees. In due time herein petitioner, who was the defendant in that court suit, answered the complaint and joined issues with the plaintiffs therein, forthwith respondent Judge, to whom that lawsuit was assigned, proceeded with the trial thereof.

After they have presented about nine witnesses and various pieces of documentary evidence, herein private respondents made a request to the respondent Judge to issue a subpoena duces tecum against the treasurer of herein petitioner. Acting favorably on that request, said respondent Judge issued a subpoena duces tecum on February 13, 1968, directing the treasurer of the present petitioner to bring with him to the lower court on February 26, 1968 and March 8, 1968 at 2:30 p.m. "all sales invoices, sales books and ledgers wherein are recorded the sales of Plymouth Star Player rubber shoes from the time the corporation started manufacturing and selling said shoes up to the present.

On March 4, 1968, petitioner filed a motion in the court below praying that the subpoena duces tecum dated February 13, 1968 be quashed on the grounds that: (1) the said subpoena is both Unreasonable and oppressive as the books and documents caned for are numerous and voluminous; (2) there is no

good cause shown for the issuance thereof; and (3) the books and documents are not relevant to the case pending below. The private respondents herein opposed that motion of the petitioner. Acting on the said motion and on the opposition thereto, respondent Judge issued the first controverted order on May 6, 1968, denying the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum.

On May 15, 1968, herein petitioner filed in the court a quo a motion for reconsideration seeking the said court to reconsider its order denying the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum. This, too, was opposed by the private respondents. Acting on this motion, as well as on the opposition thereto, respondent Judge. issued the second controverted order on June 28, 1968, denying the motion for reconsideration.

Consequently, on August 6, 1968, petitioner Universal Rubber Products, Inc. filed its present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, alleging that in so denying its motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and its subsequent motion for reconsideration, respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to an excess of jurisdiction. 1

Pending the resolution of the appealed case, the Court of Appeals issued on September 25, 1968 a temporary restraining order directing the respondent Judge of the trial court to refrain from implementing his order dated May 6, 1968 in Civil Case No. 9686. 2

On November 12, 1968, the respondent Court rendered its decision denying the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads: 3

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction is hereby denied and the temporary restraining order issued by this Court on September 25, 1968 is now lifted, with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner argues three errors to support his petition, to wit: 4

I

The respondent court erred when it found the fact of the petition and its annexes as not demonstrating clear abuse of discretion by respondent Judge.

II

The respondent court erred when it refused to sustain the contention of petitioner that the issuance by the respondent judge of the subpoena duces tecum was an arbitrary exercise of judicial power.

III

The respondent court erred when it did not consider the subpoena duces tecum issued by the respondent judge as a fishing bill when it refused to order its quashal.

The issues summarized, We are called upon to answer whether the issuance of the "subpoena duces tecum" is proper in a suit for unfair competition.

Private respondent claims the affirmative because (1) the subpoena duces tecum in question specifically designates the books and documents that should be produced in court and they are 4 sales invoices, sales books and ledgers where are recorded the sales of Plymouth Star Player Rubber Shoes from the time the corporation started manufacturing and selling shoes (that is from April 1, 1963) up to the present; and (2) the relevancy of the books subject to the controverted subpoena duces tecum cannot be seriously denied, because if and when herein respondent corporations are ultimately adjudged to be entitled to recover compensatory damages from the petitioner, there would be no factual basis for the amount of such damages unless those books and documents are laid open for the court's scrutiny.

On the other hand, petitioner submits a contrary opinion and insists that the question of liability of petitioner should be determined first before discovery by means of a subpoena duces tecum is allowed: that respondent Converse is a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines and that Edwardson is merely its licensee that respondent Converse has no goodwill to speak of and that it has no registrable right over its own names; that the questioned subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent judge was merely a "Fishing Bill."

In the meantime, while this present petition remains pending before this Court, petitioner manifested on April 2, 1977 5 that their establishment was totally burned together with all the records which is sought to be produced in court by the questioned "subpoena duces tecum" on May 3, 1970. In effect, it renders the present petition moot and academic. However, the legal principles arising from the issues deserve Our discussion and resolution.

As a general rule, on obtaining an injunction for infringement of a trademark, complainant is entitled to an accounting and recovery of defendant's profits on the goods sold under that mark, as incident to, and a part of, his property right, and this rule applies in cases of unfair competition. In such case, the infringer or unfair trader is required in equity to account for and yield up his gains on a principle analogous to that which charges as trustee with the profits acquired by the wrongful use of the property of the cestuique trust, and defendant's profits are regarded as an equitable measure of the compensation plaintiff should receive for the past harm suffered by him. 6

Well-settled is Our jurisprudence that, in order to entitle a party to the issuance of a "subpoena duces tecum ", it must appear, by clear and unequivocal proof, that the book or document sought to be produced contains evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise book, paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that it may be identified. 7 A "subpoena duces tecum once issued by the court may be quashed upon motion if the

issuance thereof is unreasonable and oppressive or the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the persons in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of production thereof. 8

In the instant case, in determining whether the books subject to the subpoena duces tecum are relevant and reasonable in relation to the complaint of private respondent for unfair competition, We have to examine Republic Act No. 166,' which provides:

CHAPTER V.—Rights and Remedies

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 23. Actions, and damages and injunction for infringement. — Any person entitled to the exclusive use of a registered mark or trade name may recover damages in a civil action from any person who infringes his rights and the measure of the damages suffered shag be either the reasonable profit which the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not infringed his said rights, or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the infringment management, or in the event such measure of damages cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty, their the court may award as damages a reasonable percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant of the value of the services in connection with which the mark or trade name was used in the infringement of the rights of the complaining party. In cases where actual intent to mislead the public or to defraud the complaining party shall be shown in the discretion of the court, the damages may be doubled.

The complaining party, upon proper showing may also be granted injunction.

In recovering the loss suffered by the aggrieved party due to unfair competition," Sec. 23 of R.A. 166 grants the complainant three options within which to ascertain the amount of damages recoverable, either (1) the reasonable profit which the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not infringed his said rights; or (2) the profit which the defendant actually made out of the infringement; or (3) the court may award as damages a reasonable percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant of the value of the services in connection with which the mark or tradename was issued in the infringement of the rights of the complaining party.

In giving life to this remedial statute, We must uphold the order of the court a quo denying the motion. of the petitioner to quash the "subpoena duces tecum" previously issued against the petitioner. In a suit for unfair competition, it is only through the issuance of the questioned "subpoena duces tecum " that the complaining party is afforded his full rights of redress.

The argument that the petitioner should first be found guilty unfair competition before an accounting for purposes of ascertaining the amount of damages recoverable can proceed, stands without merit.. The complaint for unfair competition is basically a suit for "injunction and damages". 10 Injunction, for the purpose of enjoining the unlawful competitor from proceeding further with the unlawful

competition, and damages, in order to allow the aggrieved party to recover the damage he has suffered by virtue of the said unlawful competition. Hence, the election of the complainant (private respondent herein) for the accounting of petitioner's (defendant below) gross sales as damages per R.A. 166, appears most relevant. For Us, to determine the amount of damages allowable after the final determination of the unfair labor case would not only render nugatory the rights of complainant under Sec. 23 of R.A. 166, but would be a repetitious process causing only unnecessary delay.

The sufficiency in the description of the books sought to be produced in court by the questioned "subpoena duces tecum is not disputed in this case, hence, We hold that the same has passed the test of sufficient description.

Petitioner also assails that private respondent is a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines and that respondent Edwardson is merely its licensee; that respondent Converse has no goodwill to speak of and that it has no registrable right over its own name. We have already answered this issue squarely in Our decision of the case of Converse Rubber Corporation vs. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., Inc., 11 where We explained:

The disability of a foreign corporation from suing in the Philippines is limited to suits to enforce any legal of contract rights arising from, or growing out, of any business which it has transacted in the Philippine Islands ... On the other hand, where the purpose of the suit is "to protect its reputation, its corporate name, its goodwill, whenever that reputation, corporate name or goodwill have, through the natural development of its trade, established themselves", an unlicensed foreign corporation may sue in the Philippines. So interpreted by the Supreme Court, it is clear that Section 29 of the Corporation Law does not disqualify plaintiff-appellee Converse Rubber, which does not have a branch office in any part of the Philippines and is not "doing business" in the Philippines, from filing and prosecuting this action for unfair competition.

As We said earlier, the establishment of the petitioner burned down together with all the records sought to be produced by the questioned "subpoena duces tecum," hence this case has become moot and academic. We have no recourse but to dismiss the same.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for becoming moot and academic. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., concurs in the result.

G.R. No. L-78325 January 25, 1990

DEL MONTE CORPORATION and PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION, petitioners,

vs.COURT OF APPEALS and SUNSHINE SAUCE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, respondents.

Bito, Misa & Lozada for petitioners.

Reynaldo F. Singson for private respondent.

CRUZ, J.:

The petitioners are questioning the decision of the respondent court upholding the dismissal by the trial court of their complaint against the private respondent for infringement of trademark and unfair competition.

Petitioner Del Monte Corporation is a foreign company organized under the laws of the United States and not engaged in business in the Philippines. Both the Philippines and the United States are signatories to the Convention of Paris of September 27, 1965, which grants to the nationals of the parties rights and advantages which their own nationals enjoy for the repression of acts of infringement and unfair competition.

Petitioner Philippine Packing Corporation (Philpack) is a domestic corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines. On April 11, 1969, Del Monte granted Philpack the right to manufacture, distribute and sell in the Philippines various agricultural products, including catsup, under the Del Monte trademark and logo.

On October 27,1965, Del Monte authorized Philpack to register with the Philippine Patent Office the Del Monte catsup bottle configuration, for which it was granted Certificate of Trademark Registration No. SR-913 by the Philippine Patent Office under the Supplemental Register. 1 On November 20, 1972, Del Monte also obtained two registration certificates for its trademark "DEL MONTE" and its logo. 2

Respondent Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries was issued a Certificate of Registration by the Bureau of Domestic Trade on April 17,1980, to engage in the manufacture, packing, distribution and sale of various kinds of sauce, identified by the logo Sunshine Fruit Catsup. 3 This logo was registered in the Supplemental Register on September 20, 1983. 4 The product itself was contained in various kinds of bottles, including the Del Monte bottle, which the private respondent bought from the junk shops for recycling.

Having received reports that the private respondent was using its exclusively designed bottles and a logo confusingly similar to Del Monte's, Philpack warned it to desist from doing so on pain of legal action. Thereafter, claiming that the demand had been ignored, Philpack and Del Monte filed a complaint

against the private respondent for infringement of trademark and unfair competition, with a prayer for damages and the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. 5

In its answer, Sunshine alleged that it had long ceased to use the Del Monte bottle and that its logo was substantially different from the Del Monte logo and would not confuse the buying public to the detriment of the petitioners. 6

After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed the complaint. It held that there were substantial differences between the logos or trademarks of the parties; that the defendant had ceased using the petitioners' bottles; and that in any case the defendant became the owner of the said bottles upon its purchase thereof from the junk yards. Furthermore, the complainants had failed to establish the defendant's malice or bad faith, which was an essential element of infringement of trademark or unfair competition. 7

This decision was affirmed in toto by the respondent court, which is now faulted in this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Section 22 of R.A. No. 166, otherwise known as the Trademark Law, provides in part as follows:

Sec. 22. Infringement, what constitutes. — Any person who shall use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services or identity of such business; or reproduce, counterfeit copy or colorably imitate any such mark or trade name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services, shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided.

Sec. 29 of the same law states as follows:

Sec. 29. Unfair competition, rights and remedies. — A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a mark or tradename is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as other property rights. Such a person shall have the remedies provided in section twenty- three, Chapter V hereof.

Any person who shall employ deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action therefor.

In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:

(a) Any person, who in selling his goods shall give them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would likely influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose;

(b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs ally other means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or

(c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another.

To arrive at a proper resolution of this case, it is important to bear in mind the following distinctions between infringement of trademark and unfair competition.

(1) Infringement of trademark is the unauthorized use of a trademark, whereas unfair competition is the passing off of one's goods as those of another.

(2) In infringement of trademark fraudulent intent is unnecessary whereas in unfair competition fraudulent intent is essential.

(3) In infringement of trademark the prior registration of the trademark is a prerequisite to the action, whereas in unfair competition registration is not necessary. 8

In the challenged decision, the respondent court cited the following test laid down by this Court in a number of cases:

In determining whether two trademarks are confusingly similar, the two marks in their entirety as they appear in the respective labels must be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached; the discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predorninant words but also on the other features appearing on both labels. 9

and applying the same, held that there was no colorable imitation of the petitioners' trademark and logo by the private respondent. The respondent court agreed with the findings of the trial court that:

In order to resolve the said issue, the Court now attempts to make a comparison of the two products, to wit:

1. As to the shape of label or make:

Del Monte: Semi-rectangular with a crown or tomato shape design on top of the rectangle.

Sunshine: Regular rectangle.

2. As to brand printed on label:

Del Monte: Tomato catsup mark.

Sunshine: Fruit catsup.

3. As to the words or lettering on label or mark:

Del Monte: Clearly indicated words packed by Sysu International, Inc., Q.C., Philippines.

Sunshine: Sunshine fruit catsup is clearly indicated "made in the Philippines by Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries" No. 1 Del Monte Avenue, Malabon, Metro Manila.

4. As to color of logo:

Del Monte: Combination of yellow and dark red, with words "Del Monte Quality" in white.

Sunshine: White, light green and light red, with words "Sunshine Brand" in yellow.

5. As to shape of logo:

Del Monte: In the shape of a tomato.

Sunshine: Entirely different in shape.

6. As to label below the cap:

Del Monte: Seal covering the cap down to the neck of the bottle, with picture of tomatoes with words "made from real tomatoes."

Sunshine: There is a label below the cap which says "Sunshine Brand."

7. As to the color of the products:

Del Monte: Darker red.

Sunshine: Lighter than Del Monte.

While the Court does recognize these distinctions, it does not agree with the conclusion that there was no infringement or unfair competition. It seems to us that the lower courts have been so pre-occupied with the details that they have not seen the total picture.

It has been correctly held that side-by-side comparison is not the final test of similarity. 10 Such comparison requires a careful scrutiny to determine in what points the labels of the products differ, as was done by the trial judge. The ordinary buyer does not usually make such scrutiny nor does he usually have the time to do so. The average shopper is usually in a hurry and does not inspect every product on the shelf as if he were browsing in a library. Where the housewife has to return home as soon as possible to her baby or the working woman has to make quick purchases during her off hours, she is apt to be confused by similar labels even if they do have minute differences. The male shopper is worse as he usually does not bother about such distinctions.

The question is not whether the two articles are distinguishable by their label when set side by side but whether the general confusion made by the article upon the eye of the casual purchaser who is unsuspicious and off his guard, is such as to likely result in his confounding it with the original. 11 As observed in several cases, the general impression of the ordinary purchaser, buying under the normally prevalent conditions in trade and giving the attention such purchasers usually give in buying that class of goods is the touchstone. 12

It has been held that in making purchases, the consumer must depend upon his recollection of the appearance of the product which he intends to purchase. 13 The buyer having in mind the mark/label of the respondent must rely upon his memory of the petitioner's mark. 14 Unlike the judge who has ample time to minutely examine the labels in question in the comfort of his sala, the ordinary shopper does not enjoy the same opportunity.

A number of courts have held that to determine whether a trademark has been infringed, we must consider the mark as a whole and not as dissected. If the buyer is deceived, it is attributable to the marks as a totality, not usually to any part of it. 15 The court therefore should be guided by its first impression, 16 for a buyer acts quickly and is governed by a casual glance, the value of which may be dissipated as soon as the court assumes to analyze carefully the respective features of the mark. 17

It has also been held that it is not the function of the court in cases of infringement and unfair competition to educate purchasers but rather to take their carelessness for granted, and to be ever conscious of the fact that marks need not be identical. A confusing similarity will justify the intervention of equity. 18 The judge must also be aware of the fact that usually a defendant in cases of infringement does not normally copy but makes only colorable changes. 19 Well has it been said that the most

successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public with enough points of difference to confuse the courts. 20

We also note that the respondent court failed to take into consideration several factors which should have affected its conclusion, to wit: age, training and education of the usual purchaser, the nature and cost of the article, whether the article is bought for immediate consumption and also the conditions under which it is usually purchased . 21 Among these, what essentially determines the attitude of the purchaser, specifically his inclination to be cautious, is the cost of the goods. To be sure, a person who buys a box of candies will not exercise as much care as one who buys an expensive watch. As a general rule, an ordinary buyer does not exercise as much prudence in buying an article for which he pays a few centavos as he does in purchasing a more valuable thing. 22 Expensive and valuable items are normally bought only after deliberate, comparative and analytical investigation. But mass products, low priced articles in wide use, and matters of everyday purchase requiring frequent replacement are bought by the casual consumer without great care. 23 In this latter category is catsup.

At that, even if the labels were analyzed together it is not difficult to see that the Sunshine label is a colorable imitation of the Del Monte trademark. The predominant colors used in the Del Monte label are green and red-orange, the same with Sunshine. The word "catsup" in both bottles is printed in white and the style of the print/letter is the same. Although the logo of Sunshine is not a tomato, the figure nevertheless approximates that of a tomato.

As previously stated, the person who infringes a trade mark does not normally copy out but only makes colorable changes, employing enough points of similarity to confuse the public with enough points of differences to confuse the courts. What is undeniable is the fact that when a manufacturer prepares to package his product, he has before him a boundless choice of words, phrases, colors and symbols sufficient to distinguish his product from the others. When as in this case, Sunshine chose, without a reasonable explanation, to use the same colors and letters as those used by Del Monte though the field of its selection was so broad, the inevitable conclusion is that it was done deliberately to deceive . 24

It has been aptly observed that the ultimate ratio in cases of grave doubt is the rule that as between a newcomer who by the confusion has nothing to lose and everything to gain and one who by honest dealing has already achieved favor with the public, any doubt should be resolved against the newcomer inasmuch as the field from which he can select a desirable trademark to indicate the origin of his product is obviously a large one. 25

Coming now to the second issue, we find that the private respondent is not guilty of infringement for having used the Del Monte bottle. The reason is that the configuration of the said bottle was merely registered in the Supplemental Register. In the case of Lorenzana v. Macagba, 26 we declared that:

(1) Registration in the Principal Register gives rise to a presumption of the validity of the registration, the registrant's ownership of the mark and his right to the exclusive use thereof. There is no such presumption in the registration in the Supplemental Register.

(2) Registration in the Principal Register is limited to the actual owner of the trademark and proceedings therein on the issue of ownership which may be contested through opposition or interference proceedings or, after registration, in a petition for cancellation.

Registration in the Principal Register is constructive notice of the registrant's claim of ownership, while registration in the Supplemental Register is merely proof of actual use of the trademark and notice that the registrant has used or appropriated it. It is not subject to opposition although it may be cancelled after the issuance. Corollarily, registration in the Principal Register is a basis for an action for infringement while registration in the Supplemental Register is not.

(3) In applications for registration in the Principal Register, publication of the application is necessary. This is not so in applications for registrations in the Supplemental Register.

It can be inferred from the foregoing that although Del Monte has actual use of the bottle's configuration, the petitioners cannot claim exclusive use thereof because it has not been registered in the Principal Register. However, we find that Sunshine, despite the many choices available to it and notwithstanding that the caution "Del Monte Corporation, Not to be Refilled" was embossed on the bottle, still opted to use the petitioners' bottle to market a product which Philpack also produces. This clearly shows the private respondent's bad faith and its intention to capitalize on the latter's reputation and goodwill and pass off its own product as that of Del Monte.

The Court observes that the reasons given by the respondent court in resolving the case in favor of Sunshine are untenable. First, it declared that the registration of the Sunshine label belied the company's malicious intent to imitate petitioner's product. Second, it held that the Sunshine label was not improper because the Bureau of Patent presumably considered other trademarks before approving it. Third, it cited the case of Shell Co. v. Insular Petroleum, 27 where this Court declared that selling oil in containers of another with markings erased, without intent to deceive, was not unfair competition.

Regarding the fact of registration, it is to be noted that the Sunshine label was registered not in the Principal Register but only in the Supplemental Register where the presumption of the validity of the trademark, the registrant's ownership of the mark and his right to its exclusive use are all absent.

Anent the assumption that the Bureau of Patent had considered other existing patents, it is reiterated that since registration was only in the Supplemental Register, this did not vest the registrant with the exclusive right to use the label nor did it give rise to the presumption of the validity of the registration.

On the argument that no unfair competition was committed, the Shell Case is not on all fours with the case at bar because:

(1) In Shell, the absence of intent to deceive was supported by the fact that the respondent therein, before marketing its product, totally obliterated and erased the brands/mark of the different companies

stenciled on the containers thereof, except for a single isolated transaction. The respondent in the present case made no similar effort.

(2) In Shell, what was involved was a single isolated transaction. Of the many drums used, there was only one container where the Shell label was not erased, while in the case at hand, the respondent admitted that it made use of several Del Monte bottles and without obliterating the embossed warning.

(3) In Shell, the product of respondent was sold to dealers, not to ultimate consumers. As a general rule, dealers are well acquainted with the manufacturer from whom they make their purchases and since they are more experienced, they cannot be so easily deceived like the inexperienced public. There may well be similarities and imitations which deceive all, but generally the interests of the dealers are not regarded with the same solicitude as are the interests of the ordinary consumer. For it is the form in which the wares come to the final buyer that is of significance. 28

As Sunshine's label is an infringement of the Del Monte's trademark, law and equity call for the cancellation of the private respondent's registration and withdrawal of all its products bearing the questioned label from the market. With regard to the use of Del Monte's bottle, the same constitutes unfair competition; hence, the respondent should be permanently enjoined from the use of such bottles.

The court must rule, however, that the damage prayed for cannot be granted because the petitioner has not presented evidence to prove the amount thereof. Section 23 of R.A. No. 166 provides:

Sec. 23. Actions and damages and injunction for infringement. — Any person entitled to the exclusive use of a registered mark or trade name may recover damages in a civil action from any person who infringes his rights, and the measure of the damages suffered shall be either the reasonable profit which the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not infringed his said rights or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the infringement, or in the event such measure of damages cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty the court may award as damages reasonable percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant or the value of the services in connection with which the mark or trade name was used in the infringement of the rights of the complaining party. In cases where actual intent to mislead the public or to defraud the complaining party shall be shown, in the discretion of the court, the damages may be doubled.

The complaining party, upon proper showing may also be granted injunction.

Fortunately for the petitioners, they may still find some small comfort in Art. 2222 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation arising from any source enumerated in Art. 1157, or in every case where any property right has been invaded.

Accordingly, the Court can only award to the petitioners, as it hereby does award, nominal damages in the amount of Pl,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 24, 1986 and the Resolution dated April 27,1987, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is hereby rendered:

(1) Canceling the private respondent's Certificate of Register No. SR-6310 and permanently enjoining the private respondent from using a label similar to that of the petitioners.

(2) Prohibiting the private respondent from using the empty bottles of the petitioners as containers for its own products.

(3) Ordering the private respondent to pay the petitioners nominal damages in the amount of Pl,000.00, and the costs of the suit.

G.R. No. 78298 January 30, 1989

WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC., petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LOLITO P. CRUZ, respondents.

K. V. Faylona & Associates for petitioner.

Florencio Z. Sioson for private respondent Lolito P. Cruz.

SARMIENTO, J.:

The subject of this petition for review is the resolution of the Court of Appeals 1 granting the private respondents's motion for reconsideration and reviving the decision of the Director of Patents which ordered the dismissal, on the ground of res judicata, of Inter Partes Case No. 807 instituted by the petitioner herein.

On February 8, 1984, the petitioner, a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United States, brought a petition before the Philippine Patent Office, docketed as Inter Partes Case No. 1807, for the cancellation of Certificate of Registration No. 24986-B of the trademark HUSH PUPPIES and DOG DEVICE issued to the private respondent, a Filipino citizen.

In support of its petition for cancellation, the petitioner alleged, inter alia, that it is the registrant of the internationally known trademark HUSH PUPPIES and the DEVICE of a Dog in the United States and in

other countries which are members of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; that the goods sold by the private respondent, on the one hand, and by the petitioner, on the other hand, belong to the same class such that the private respondent's use of the same trademark in the Philippines (which is a member of said Paris Convention) in connection with the goods he sells constitutes an act of unfair competition, as denied in the Paris Convention.

Subsequently, the private respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of res judicata, averring that in 1973, or more than ten years before this petition (Inter Partes Case No. 1807) was filed, the same petitioner filed two petitions for cancellation (Inter Partes Cases Nos. 700 and 701) and was a party to an interference proceeding (Inter Partes Case No. 709), all of which involved the trademark HUSH PUPPIES and DEVICE, before the Philippine Patent Office. The Director of Patents had ruled in all three inter parties cases in favor of Ramon Angeles, the private respondent's predecessor-in-interest, to wit:

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing considerations,

1. The petitions seeking cancellation of Registration Nos. SR-1099 and SR-1526, respectively, are both denied and accordingly DISMISSED;

2. Respondent-Registrant/Junior Party-Applicant, Roman Angeles, is hereby adjudged as the prior user and adopter of the trademark HUSH PUPPIES & DEVICE, under Appl. Serial No. 17174, and therefore, the same given due course; and

3. Registration No. 14969 of Dexter Sales Company, assignor to Wolverine Worldwide, Inc., covering the trademark HUSH PUPPIES & Representation of a Dogie Head, is hereby CANCELLED. 2

On June 29, 1979, the Court of Appeals affirmed tile above decision, finding the same to be in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence. 3

In the present case, after both parties had submitted their respective memoranda, the Director of Patents rendered the questioned decision (in Inter Partes Case No. 1807), the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations this Office is constrained to hold that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be, as it is hereby, GRANTED and that the subject Petition for Cancellation be, as it is hereby DISMISSED.

Accordingly, Certificate of Registration No. 24986-B issued on May 3, 1983 to the herein Respondent-Registrant, Lolito P. Cruz, for the trademark "HUSH PUPPIES" for use on shoes is, as it is hereby, declared valid and subsisting for the duration of its term unless owner cancelled in accordance with law. 4

On appeal, the Court of Appeals at first set aside the Director's decision; 5 however, upon reconsideration the latter was revived. 6

The principal legal question raised in this petition for review is whether or not the present petition for cancellation (Inter Partes Case No. 1807) is barred by res judicata in the light of the final and executory decision in Inter Partes Cases Nos. 700 701, and 709.

We rule in the affirmative.

The Court has repeatedly held that for a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be a final judgment; (2) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be Identity between the two cases, as to parties, — subject matter, and cause of action. 7

Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, the judgment in Inter Partes Cases Nos. 700, 701, and 709 had long since become final and executory. That Sec. 17 of Republic Act 166, also known as the Trademark Law, allows the cancellation of a registered trademark is not a valid premise for the petitioner's proposition that a decision granting registration of a trademark cannot be imbued with the character of absolute finality as is required in res judicata. A judgment or order is final, as to give it the authority of res judicata, if it can no longer be modified by the court issuing it or by any other court. 8 In the case at bar, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Director of Patents, in the cancellation cases filed in 1973, was never appealed to us. Consequently, when the period to appeal from the Court of Appeals to this Court lapsed, with no appeal having been perfected, the foregoing judgment denying cancellation of registration in the name of private respondent's predecessor-in-interest but ordering cancellation of registration in the name of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, became the settled law in the case. In the words of the Court of Appeals:

The subsequent failure of appellant-oppositor to elevate the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the Director of Patents, to the Supreme Court, sounded the death knell of appellant-oppositor's instant case. Having become final and executory, the decision in Case No. 967 now bars the prosecution of the present action under the principle of res judicata. 9

It must be stressed anew that, generally, the fundamental principle of res judicata applies to all cases and proceedings in whatever form they may be. 10 We now expressly affirm that this principle applies, in the appropriate cases, to proceedings for cancellation of trademarks before the Philippine Patent Office (now Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer). In Ipekjan Merchandising Co., Inc. vs Court of Tax Appeals, we said:

To say that the doctrine applies exclusively to decisions rendered by what are usually understood as courts would be to unreasonably circumscribe the scope thereof. The more equitable attitude is to allow extension of the defense to decisions of bodies upon whom judicial powers have been conferred. 11

Undoubtedly, final decisions, orders, and resolutions, of the Director of Patents are clothed with a judicial character as they are, in fact, reviewable by the Court of Appeals and by us.

The subject judgment is undeniably on the merits of the case, rendered after both parties and actually submitted their evidence.

Between the earlier petitions and the present one there is substantial identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action.

The petitioner in all of these cases is Wolverine Worldwide, Inc. The respondent-registrant in this case is the assignee of Randelson Agro-Industrial Development, Inc. (formerly known as Randelson Shoes, Inc.) which in turn, acquired its right from Ramon Angeles, the original respondents-registrant.

As regards the subject matter, all of these cases refer to the cancellation of registration of the trademark HUSH PUPPIES and DEVICE of a Dog.

Finally, there is identity of cause of action, which is the alleged wrongful or erroneous registration of the trademark.

It is argued, however, that res judicata does not apply in this particular instance because when the May 9, 1977 decision was handed down by the Director of Patents, Executive Order No. 913 dated October 7, 1983 and the resulting memorandum of Minister Roberto Ongpin dated October 25, 1983 had not yet been issued. (The validity of this memorandum was later upheld by this Court in La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Fernandez and Sujanani vs. Ongpin). 12 The petitioner underscores the following specific directive contained in the abovementioned memorandum of Minister Ongpin for the Director of Patents:

5. All pending applications for Philippine registration of signature and other world famous trademarks filed by applicants other than their original owners or users shall be rejected forthwith. Where such applicants have already obtained registration contrary to the abovementioned PARIS CONVENTION and/or Philippine Law, they shall be directed to surrender their Certificates of Registration to the Philippine Patent Office for immediate cancellation proceedings. 13

It is thus contended that despite the previous grant of registration to the private respondent, the present petition for cancellation could still be brought, and the same should be granted by the Director of Patents, pursuant to the abovequoted clause. Stated otherwise, the petitioner suggests that the petition is not barred by res judicata because while the former petitions were filed under Republic Act 166, the present one was brought pursuant to the cited memorandum which expressly sanctions the cancellation of registration of a trademark granted even prior to the same memorandum.

In the first place, the subject memorandum never amended, nor was it meant to amend, the Trademark Law. It did not indicate a new policy with respect to the registration in the Philippines of world-famous

trademarks. The protection against unfair competition, and other benefits, accorded to owners of internationally known marks, as mandated by the Paris Convention, is already guaranteed under the Trademark Law. 14 Thus, the subject memorandum, as well as Executive Order No. 913, merely reiterated the policy already existing at the time of its issuance. As accurately enunciated by the Court of Appeals:

Such being the case, appellant-oppositor could have properly ventilated the issue of whether or not it fell within the protective ambit of the Paris Convention in the previous proceedings which culminated in the registration of the Hush Puppies trademark in appellee-movant's name, i.e., in Case No. 967 before the Philippine Patent Office. The Director of Patents in that case, after hearing both parties and thereafter, deciding that appellee-movant was entitled to the registration of the trademark in its name, must have concluded that appellant-oppositor had not established the fact that it was entitled to the application of the favorable provision; of the Paris Convention. 15

Furthermore, we agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the memorandum discussed here is subject to the doctrine of res judicata. The same memorandum has, in the words of the Court of Appeals:

... no room for application where the oppositor previously availed of the same remedy to contest and cancel the registration of subject trademark but did not prevail, against the same registrant regarding the same subject matter (the trademark in question) and for the same cause of action. This is the more so when, as in this present controversy, the certificate of registration, cancellation of which is sought anew, was issued by the Patent office after due hearing in the prior appropriate inter partes case, pursuant to a decision of the Director of Patents which was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals, and has become final and executory. 16

In the same light, the repeated filing of petitions for cancellation founded on substantially the same ground as provided in Sec. 17 of the Trademark Law, we rule, is not permissible. For to allow without any limitation whatsoever such a practice would be clearly violative of the time-honored doctrine of res judicata. The present petition for cancellation raises basically the same issue of ownership of the trademark HUSH PUPPIES, which issue was already discussed and settled in Inter Partes Cases Nos. 700, 701, and 709. As pointed out by the private respondent, the petitioner itself expressly recognized the issue of ownership when in the brief it filed in the Court of Appeals it included the following in the assignment of errors:

That the Philippine Patent Office erred in holding that respondent-appellee has established prior use and adoption of the trademark HUSH PUPPIES and is the true and lawful owner thereof, instead of petitioner-appellant herein. (Emphasis supplied). 17

The aforesaid cases, involving as they were the registration of a trademark, necessarily litigated the issue of ownership of such trademark because ownership is, indeed, the basis of registration of a trademark. 18 Thus, Section 4 of R.A. 166 provides: ". . . The owner of a trademark, trade name or

service-mark used to distinguish his goods, business or services from the goods, business or services of others shall have the right to register the same on the principal register. . . " Res judicata now bars the petitioner from reopening, by way of another petition for cancellation (the present Inter Partes Case No. 1807), the issue of ownership of the trademark HUSH PUPPIES. Otherwise, there will never be an end to litigation.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 169974 April 20, 2010

SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, vs.KUNNAN ENTERPRISES LTD. AND SPORTS CONCEPT & DISTRIBUTOR, INC., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

We review in this petition for review on certiorari1 the (1) decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 60777 that reversed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 85 (RTC),3 and dismissed the petitioner Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc.’s (SUPERIOR) complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition (with prayer for preliminary injunction) against the respondents Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. (KUNNAN) and Sports Concept and Distributor, Inc. (SPORTS CONCEPT); and (2) the CA resolution4 that denied SUPERIOR’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. The RTC decision that the CA reversed found the respondents liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition, and ordered them to pay SUPERIOR P2,000,000.00 in damages, P500,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit.

THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

On February 23, 1993, SUPERIOR5 filed a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition with preliminary injunction against KUNNAN6 and SPORTS CONCEPT7 with the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-93014888.

In support of its complaint, SUPERIOR first claimed to be the owner of the trademarks, trading styles, company names and business names8 "KENNEX",9 "KENNEX & DEVICE",10 "PRO KENNEX"11 and "PRO-KENNEX" (disputed trademarks).12 Second, it also asserted its prior use of these trademarks, presenting as evidence of ownership the Principal and Supplemental Registrations of these trademarks in its name. Third, SUPERIOR also alleged that it extensively sold and advertised sporting goods and products covered by its trademark registrations. Finally, SUPERIOR presented as evidence of its ownership of the

disputed trademarks the preambular clause of the Distributorship Agreement dated October 1, 1982 (Distributorship Agreement) it executed with KUNNAN, which states:

Whereas, KUNNAN intends to acquire the ownership of KENNEX trademark registered by the [sic] Superior in the Philippines. Whereas, the [sic] Superior is desirous of having been appointed [sic] as the sole distributor by KUNNAN in the territory of the Philippines." [Emphasis supplied.]13

In its defense, KUNNAN disputed SUPERIOR’s claim of ownership and maintained that SUPERIOR – as mere distributor from October 6, 1982 until December 31, 1991 – fraudulently registered the trademarks in its name. KUNNAN alleged that it was incorporated in 1972, under the name KENNEX Sports Corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and selling sportswear and sports equipment; it commercially marketed its products in different countries, including the Philippines since 1972.14 It created and first used "PRO KENNEX," derived from its original corporate name, as a distinctive trademark for its products in 1976. KUNNAN also alleged that it registered the "PRO KENNEX" trademark not only in the Philippines but also in 31 other countries, and widely promoted the "KENNEX" and "PRO KENNEX" trademarks through worldwide advertisements in print media and sponsorships of known tennis players.

On October 1, 1982, after the expiration of its initial distributorship agreement with another company,15 KUNNAN appointed SUPERIOR as its exclusive distributor in the Philippines under a Distributorship Agreement whose pertinent provisions state:16

Whereas, KUNNAN intends to acquire ownership of KENNEX trademark registered by the Superior in the Philippines. Whereas, the Superior is desirous of having been appointed [sic] as the sole distributor by KUNNAN in the territory of the Philippines.

Now, therefore, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. KUNNAN in accordance with this Agreement, will appoint the sole distributorship right to Superior in the Philippines, and this Agreement could be renewed with the consent of both parties upon the time of expiration.

2. The Superior, in accordance with this Agreement, shall assign the ownership of KENNEX trademark, under the registration of Patent Certificate No. 4730 dated 23 May 1980 to KUNNAN on the effects [sic] of its ten (10) years contract of distributorship, and it is required that the ownership of the said trademark shall be genuine, complete as a whole and without any defects.

3. KUNNAN will guarantee to the Superior that no other third parties will be permitted to supply the KENNEX PRODUCTS in the Philippines except only to the Superior. If KUNNAN violates this stipulation, the transfer of the KENNEX trademark shall be null and void.

4. If there is a necessity, the Superior will be appointed, for the protection of interest of both parties, as the agent in the Philippines with full power to exercise and granted the power of attorney, to pursue any case of Pirating, Infringement and Counterfeiting the [sic] KENNEX trade mark in the Philippine territory.

5. The Superior will be granted from [sic] KUNNAN’s approval before making and selling any KENNEX products made in the Philippines and the other countries, and if this is the situation, KUNNAN is entitled to have a royalty of 5%-8% of FOB as the right.

6. Without KUNNAN’s permission, the Superior cannot procure other goods supply under KENNEX brand of which are not available to supply [sic] by KUNNAN. However, in connection with the sporting goods, it is permitted that the Superior can procure them under KENNEX brand of which are not available to be supplied by KUNNAN. [Emphasis supplied.]

Even though this Agreement clearly stated that SUPERIOR was obligated to assign the ownership of the KENNEX trademark to KUNNAN, the latter claimed that the Certificate of Registration for the KENNEX trademark remained with SUPERIOR because Mariano Tan Bon Diong (Mr. Tan Bon Diong), SUPERIOR’s President and General Manager, misled KUNNAN’s officers into believing that KUNNAN was not qualified to hold the same due to the "many requirements set by the Philippine Patent Office" that KUNNAN could not meet.17 KUNNAN further asserted that SUPERIOR deceived it into assigning its applications for registration of the "PRO KENNEX" trademark in favor of SUPERIOR, through an Assignment Agreement dated June 14, 1983 whose pertinent provisions state:18

1. In consideration of the distributorship relationship between KUNNAN and Superior, KUNNAN, who is the seller in the distributorship relationship, agrees to assign the following trademark applications owned by itself in the Philippines to Superior who is the buyer in the distributorship relationship.

Trademark Application Number ClassPROKENNEX 49999 28PROKENNEX 49998 25PROKENNEX 49997 182. Superior shall acknowledge that KUNNAN is still the real and truthful owner of the abovementioned trademarks, and shall agree that it will not use the right of the abovementioned trademarks to do anything which is unfavourable or harmful to KUNNAN.

3. Superior agrees that it will return back the abovementioned trademarks to KUNNAN without hesitation at the request of KUNNAN at any time. KUNNAN agrees that the cost for the concerned assignment of the abovementioned trademarks shall be compensated by KUNNAN.1avvphi1

4. Superior agrees that the abovementioned trademarks when requested by KUNNAN shall be clean and without any incumbency.

5. Superior agrees that after the assignment of the abovementioned trademarks, it shall have no right to reassign or license the said trademarks to any other parties except KUNNAN. [Emphasis supplied]

Prior to and during the pendency of the infringement and unfair competition case before the RTC, KUNNAN filed with the now defunct Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer19 separate Petitions for the Cancellation of Registration Trademark Nos. 41032, SR 6663, 40326, 39254, 4730 and 49998, docketed as Inter Partes Cases Nos. 3709, 3710, 3811, 3812, 3813 and 3814, as well as Opposition to Application Serial Nos. 84565 and 84566, docketed as Inter Partes Cases Nos. 4101 and 4102 (Consolidated Petitions for Cancellation) involving the KENNEX and PRO KENNEX trademarks.20 In essence, KUNNAN filed the Petition for Cancellation and Opposition on the ground that SUPERIOR fraudulently registered and appropriated the disputed trademarks; as mere distributor and not as lawful owner, it obtained the registrations and assignments of the disputed trademarks in violation of the terms of the Distributorship Agreement and Sections 2-A and 17 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended.21

On December 3, 1991, upon the termination of its distributorship agreement with SUPERIOR, KUNNAN appointed SPORTS CONCEPT as its new distributor. Subsequently, KUNNAN also caused the publication of a Notice and Warning in the Manila Bulletin’s January 29, 1993 issue, stating that (1) it is the owner of the disputed trademarks; (2) it terminated its Distributorship Agreement with SUPERIOR; and (3) it appointed SPORTS CONCEPT as its exclusive distributor. This notice prompted SUPERIOR to file its Complaint for Infringement of Trademark and Unfair Competition with Preliminary Injunction against KUNNAN.22

The RTC Ruling

On March 31, 1998, the RTC issued its decision23 holding KUNNAN liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The RTC also issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining KUNNAN and SPORTS CONCEPT from using the disputed trademarks.

The RTC found that SUPERIOR sufficiently proved that it was the first user and owner of the disputed trademarks in the Philippines, based on the findings of the Director of Patents in Inter Partes Case No. 1709 and 1734 that SUPERIOR was "rightfully entitled to register the mark ‘KENNEX’ as user and owner thereof." It also considered the "Whereas clause" of the Distributorship Agreement, which categorically stated that "KUNNAN intends to acquire ownership of [the] KENNEX trademark registered by SUPERIOR in the Philippines." According to the RTC, this clause amounts to KUNNAN’s express recognition of SUPERIOR’s ownership of the KENNEX trademarks.24

KUNNAN and SPORTS CONCEPT appealed the RTC’s decision to the CA where the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 60777. KUNNAN maintained that SUPERIOR was merely its distributor and could not be the owner of the disputed trademarks. SUPERIOR, for its part, claimed ownership based on its prior use and numerous valid registrations.

Intervening Developments:

The IPO and CA Rulings

In the course of its appeal to the CA, KUNNAN filed on December 19, 2003 a Manifestation and Motion praying that the decision of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), dated October 30, 2003, in the Consolidated Petitions for Cancellation be made of record and be considered by the CA in resolving the case.25 The BLA ruled in this decision –

In the case at bar, Petitioner-Opposer (Kunnan) has overwhelmingly and convincingly established its rights to the mark "PRO KENNEX". It was proven that actual use by Respondent-Registrant is not in the concept of an owner but as a mere distributor (Exhibits "I", "S" to "S-1", "P" and "P-1" and "Q" and "Q-2") and as enunciated in the case of Crisanta Y. Gabriel vs. Dr. Jose R. Perez, 50 SCRA 406, "a mere distributor of a product bearing a trademark, even if permitted to use said trademark has no right to and cannot register the said trademark."

WHEREFORE, there being sufficient evidence to prove that the Petitioner-Opposer (KUNNAN) is the prior user and owner of the trademark "PRO-KENNEX", the consolidated Petitions for Cancellation and the Notices of Opposition are hereby GRANTED. Consequently, the trademark "PRO-KENNEX" bearing Registration Nos. 41032, 40326, 39254, 4730, 49998 for the mark PRO-KENNEX issued in favor of Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc., herein Respondent-Registrant under the Principal Register and SR No. 6663 are hereby CANCELLED. Accordingly, trademark application Nos. 84565 and 84566, likewise for the registration of the mark PRO-KENNEX are hereby REJECTED.

Let the file wrappers of PRO-KENNEX subject matter of these cases be forwarded to the Administrative Finance and Human Resources Development Services Bureau (AFHRDSB) for appropriate action in accordance with this Decision and a copy thereof be furnished the Bureau of Trademarks (BOT) for information and update of its record.26

On February 4, 2005, KUNNAN again filed another Manifestation requesting that the IPO Director General’s decision on appeal dated December 8, 2004, denying SUPERIOR’s appeal, be given weight in the disposition of the case.27 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:28

WHEREFORE, premises considered, there is no cogent reason to disturb Decision No. 2003-35 dated 30 October 2003 rendered by the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs. Accordingly, the instant appeal is DENIED and the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

We take judicial notice that SUPERIOR questioned the IPO Director General’s ruling before the Court of Appeals on a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA–G.R. SP No. 87928 (Registration Cancellation Case). On August 30, 2007, the CA rendered its decision dismissing SUPERIOR’s petition.29 On December 3, 2007, the CA decision was declared final and executory and entry of judgment was accordingly made. Hence, SUPERIOR’s registration of the disputed trademarks now stands effectively cancelled.

The CA Ruling

On June 22, 2005, the CA issued its decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 60777, reversing and setting aside the RTC’s decision of March 31, 1998.30 It dismissed SUPERIOR’s Complaint for Infringement of Trademark and Unfair Competition with Preliminary Injunction on the ground that SUPERIOR failed to establish by preponderance of evidence its claim of ownership over the KENNEX and PRO KENNEX trademarks. The CA found the Certificates of Principal and Supplemental Registrations and the "whereas clause" of the Distributorship Agreement insufficient to support SUPERIOR’s claim of ownership over the disputed trademarks.

The CA stressed that SUPERIOR’s possession of the aforementioned Certificates of Principal Registration does not conclusively establish its ownership of the disputed trademarks as dominion over trademarks is not acquired by the fact of registration alone;31 at best, registration merely raises a presumption of ownership that can be rebutted by contrary evidence.32 The CA further emphasized that the Certificates of Supplemental Registration issued in SUPERIOR’s name do not even enjoy the presumption of ownership accorded to registration in the principal register; it does not amount to a prima facie evidence of the validity of registration or of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the trademarks in connection with the goods, business, or services specified in the certificate.33

In contrast with the failure of SUPERIOR’s evidence, the CA found that KUNNAN presented sufficient evidence to rebut SUPERIOR’s presumption of ownership over the trademarks. KUNNAN established that SUPERIOR, far from being the rightful owner of the disputed trademarks, was merely KUNNAN’s exclusive distributor. This conclusion was based on three pieces of evidence that, to the CA, clearly established that SUPERIOR had no proprietary interest over the disputed trademarks.

First, the CA found that the Distributorship Agreement, considered in its entirety, positively confirmed that SUPERIOR sought to be the KUNNAN’s exclusive distributor. The CA based this conclusion on the following provisions of the Distributorship Agreement:

(1) that SUPERIOR was "desirous of [being] appointed as the sole distributor by KUNNAN in the territory of the Philippines;"

(2) that "KUNNAN will appoint the sole distributorship right to Superior in the Philippines;" and

(3) that "no third parties will be permitted to supply KENNEX PRODUCTS in the Philippines except only to Superior."

The CA thus emphasized that the RTC erred in unduly relying on the first whereas clause, which states that "KUNNAN intends to acquire ownership of [the] KENNEX trademark registered by SUPERIOR in the Philippines" without considering the entirety of the Distributorship Agreement indicating that SUPERIOR had been merely appointed by KUNNAN as its distributor.

Second, the CA also noted that SUPERIOR made the express undertaking in the Assignment Agreement to "acknowledge that KUNNAN is still the real and truthful owner of the [PRO KENNEX] trademarks," and that it "shall agree that it will not use the right of the abovementioned trademarks to do anything which is unfavourable or harmful to KUNNAN." To the CA, these provisions are clearly inconsistent with SUPERIOR’s claim of ownership of the disputed trademarks. The CA also observed that although the Assignment Agreement was a private document, its authenticity and due execution was proven by the similarity of Mr. Tan Bon Diong’s signature in the Distributorship Agreement and the Assignment Agreement.

Third, the CA also took note of SUPERIOR’s Letter dated November 12, 1986 addressed to Brig. Gen. Jose Almonte, identifying itself as the "sole and exclusive licensee and distributor in the Philippines of all its KENNEX and PRO-KENNEX products." Attached to the letter was an agreement with KUNNAN, identifying the latter as the "foreign manufacturer of all KENNEX products." The CA concluded that in this letter, SUPERIOR acknowledged its status as a distributor in its dealings with KUNNAN, and even in its transactions with third persons.

Based on these reasons, the CA ruled that SUPERIOR was a mere distributor and had no right to the registration of the disputed trademarks since the right to register a trademark is based on ownership. Citing Section 4 of Republic Act No. 16634 and established jurisprudence,35 the CA held that SUPERIOR – as an exclusive distributor – did not acquire any proprietary interest in the principal’s (KUNNAN’s) trademark.

The CA denied SUPERIOR’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit in its Resolution dated October 4, 2005.

THE PETITION

In the present petition, SUPERIOR raises the following issues:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER SUPERIOR IS NOT THE TRUE AND RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE TRADEMARKS "KENNEX" AND "PRO-KENNEX" IN THE PHILIPPINES

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER SUPERIOR IS A MERE DISTRIBUTOR OF RESPONDENT KUNNAN IN THE PHILIPPINES

III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY IN CIVIL CASE NO. Q-93-14888, LIFTING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED AGAINST RESPONDENTS KUNNAN AND SPORTS CONCEPT AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND UNFAIR COMPETITION WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THE COURT’S RULING

We do not find the petition meritorious.

On the Issue of Trademark Infringement

We first consider the effect of the final and executory decision in the Registration Cancellation Case on the present case. This decision - rendered after the CA decision for trademark infringement and unfair competition in CA-G.R. CV No. 60777 (root of the present case) - states:

As to whether respondent Kunnan was able to overcome the presumption of ownership in favor of Superior, the former sufficiently established the fraudulent registration of the questioned trademarks by Superior. The Certificates of Registration No. SR-4730 (Supplemental Register) and 33487 (Principal Register) for the KENNEX trademark were fraudulently obtained by petitioner Superior. Even before PROKENNEX products were imported by Superior into the Philippines, the same already enjoyed popularity in various countries and had been distributed worldwide, particularly among the sports and tennis enthusiasts since 1976. Riding on the said popularity, Superior caused the registration thereof in the Philippines under its name when it knew fully well that it did not own nor did it manufacture the PROKENNEX products. Superior claimed ownership of the subject marks and failed to disclose in its application with the IPO that it was merely a distributor of KENNEX and PROKENNEX products in the Philippines.

While Superior accepted the obligation to assign Certificates of Registration Nos. SR-4730 and 33487 to Kunnan in exchange for the appointment by the latter as its exclusive distributor, Superior however breached its obligation and failed to assign the same to Kunnan. In a letter dated 13 February 1987, Superior, through Mr. Tan Bon Diong, misrepresented to Kunnan that the latter cannot own trademarks in the Philippines. Thus, Kunnan was misled into assigning to Superior its (Kunnan’s) own application for the disputed trademarks. In the same assignment document, however. Superior was bound to ensure that the PROKENNEX trademarks under Registration Nos. 40326, 39254, and 49998 shall be returned to Kunnan clean and without any incumbency when requested by the latter.

In fine, We see no error in the decision of the Director General of the IPO which affirmed the decision of the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs canceling the registration of the questioned marks in the name of petitioner Superior and denying its new application for registration, upon a finding that Superior is not the rightful owner of the subject marks.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the petition is DISMISSED.

The CA decided that the registration of the "KENNEX" and "PRO KENNEX" trademarks should be cancelled because SUPERIOR was not the owner of, and could not in the first place have validly registered these trademarks. Thus, as of the finality of the CA decision on December 3, 2007, these trademark registrations were effectively cancelled and SUPERIOR was no longer the registrant of the disputed trademarks.

Section 22 of Republic Act No. 166, as amended ("RA 166"),36 the law applicable to this case, defines trademark infringement as follows:

Section 22. Infringement, what constitutes. — Any person who [1] shall use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-name in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or [2] reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate any such mark or trade-name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services, shall be liable to a civil action by the registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided. [Emphasis supplied]

Essentially, Section 22 of RA 166 states that only a registrant of a mark can file a case for infringement. Corollary to this, Section 19 of RA 166 provides that any right conferred upon the registrant under the provisions of RA 16637 terminates when the judgment or order of cancellation has become final, viz:

Section 19. Cancellation of registration. - If the Director finds that a case for cancellation has been made out he shall order the cancellation of the registration. The order shall not become effective until the period for appeal has elapsed, or if appeal is taken, until the judgment on appeal becomes final. When the order or judgment becomes final, any right conferred by such registration upon the registrant or any person in interest of record shall terminate. Notice of cancellation shall be published in the Official Gazette. [Emphasis supplied.]

Thus, we have previously held that the cancellation of registration of a trademark has the effect of depriving the registrant of protection from infringement from the moment judgment or order of cancellation has become final.38

In the present case, by operation of law, specifically Section 19 of RA 166, the trademark infringement aspect of SUPERIOR’s case has been rendered moot and academic in view of the finality of the decision in the Registration Cancellation Case. In short, SUPERIOR is left without any cause of action for trademark infringement since the cancellation of registration of a trademark deprived it of protection from infringement from the moment judgment or order of cancellation became final. To be sure, in a

trademark infringement, title to the trademark is indispensable to a valid cause of action and such title is shown by its certificate of registration.39 With its certificates of registration over the disputed trademarks effectively cancelled with finality, SUPERIOR’s case for trademark infringement lost its legal basis and no longer presented a valid cause of action.

Even assuming that SUPERIOR’s case for trademark infringement had not been rendered moot and academic, there can be no infringement committed by KUNNAN who was adjudged with finality to be the rightful owner of the disputed trademarks in the Registration Cancellation Case. Even prior to the cancellation of the registration of the disputed trademarks, SUPERIOR – as a mere distributor and not the owner – cannot assert any protection from trademark infringement as it had no right in the first place to the registration of the disputed trademarks. In fact, jurisprudence holds that in the absence of any inequitable conduct on the part of the manufacturer, an exclusive distributor who employs the trademark of the manufacturer does not acquire proprietary rights of the manufacturer, and a registration of the trademark by the distributor as such belongs to the manufacturer, provided the fiduciary relationship does not terminate before application for registration is filed.40 Thus, the CA in the Registration Cancellation Case correctly held:

As a mere distributor, petitioner Superior undoubtedly had no right to register the questioned mark in its name. Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the right to register a trademark should be based on ownership. When the applicant is not the owner of the trademark being applied for, he has no right to apply for the registration of the same. Under the Trademark Law, only the owner of the trademark, trade name or service mark used to distinguish his goods, business or service from the goods, business or service of others is entitled to register the same. An exclusive distributor does not acquire any proprietary interest in the principal’s trademark and cannot register it in his own name unless it is has been validly assigned to him.

In addition, we also note that the doctrine of res judicata bars SUPERIOR’s present case for trademark infringement. The doctrine of res judicata embraces two (2) concepts: the first is "bar by prior judgment" under paragraph (b) of Rule 39, Section 47, and the second is "conclusiveness of judgment" under paragraph (c) thereof.

In the present case, the second concept – conclusiveness of judgment – applies. Under the concept of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit.41 Stated differently, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different cause of action.42 This second branch of the principle of res judicata bars the re-litigation of particular facts or issues in another litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.43

Because the Registration Cancellation Case and the present case involve the same parties, litigating with respect to and disputing the same trademarks, we are bound to examine how one case would affect the

other. In the present case, even if the causes of action of the Registration Cancellation Case (the cancellation of trademark registration) differs from that of the present case (the improper or unauthorized use of trademarks), the final judgment in the Registration Cancellation Case is nevertheless conclusive on the particular facts and issues that are determinative of the present case.

To establish trademark infringement, the following elements must be proven: (1) the validity of plaintiff’s mark; (2) the plaintiff’s ownership of the mark; and (3) the use of the mark or its colorable imitation by the alleged infringer results in "likelihood of confusion."44

Based on these elements, we find it immediately obvious that the second element – the plaintiff’s ownership of the mark – was what the Registration Cancellation Case decided with finality. On this element depended the validity of the registrations that, on their own, only gave rise to the presumption of, but was not conclusive on, the issue of ownership.45

In no uncertain terms, the appellate court in the Registration Cancellation Case ruled that SUPERIOR was a mere distributor and could not have been the owner, and was thus an invalid registrant of the disputed trademarks. Significantly, these are the exact terms of the ruling the CA arrived at in the present petition now under our review. Thus, whether with one or the other, the ruling on the issue of ownership of the trademarks is the same. Given, however, the final and executory ruling in the Registration Cancellation Case on the issue of ownership that binds us and the parties, any further discussion and review of the issue of ownership – although the current CA ruling is legally correct and can stand on its own merits – becomes a pointless academic discussion.

On the Issue of Unfair Competition

Our review of the records shows that the neither the RTC nor the CA made any factual findings with respect to the issue of unfair competition. In its Complaint, SUPERIOR alleged that:46

17. In January 1993, the plaintiff learned that the defendant Kunnan Enterprises, Ltd., is intending to appoint the defendant Sports Concept and Distributors, Inc. as its alleged distributor for sportswear and sporting goods bearing the trademark "PRO-KENNEX." For this reason, on January 20, 1993, the plaintiff, through counsel, wrote the defendant Sports Concept and Distributor’s Inc. advising said defendant that the trademark "PRO-KENNEX" was registered and owned by the plaintiff herein.

18. The above information was affirmed by an announcement made by the defendants in The Manila Bulletin issue of January 29, 1993, informing the public that defendant Kunnan Enterprises, Ltd. has appointed the defendant Sports Concept and Distributors, Inc. as its alleged distributor of sportswear and sporting goods and equipment bearing the trademarks "KENNEX and "PRO-KENNEX" which trademarks are owned by and registered in the name of plaintiff herein as alleged hereinabove.

x x x x

27. The acts of defendants, as previously complained herein, were designed to and are of the nature so as to create confusion with the commercial activities of plaintiff in the Philippines and is liable to mislead the public as to the nature and suitability for their purposes of plaintiff’s business and the defendant’s acts are likely to discredit the commercial activities and future growth of plaintiff’s business.

From jurisprudence, unfair competition has been defined as the passing off (or palming off) or attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public. The essential elements of unfair competition47 are (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods; and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor.48

Jurisprudence also formulated the following "true test" of unfair competition: whether the acts of the defendant have the intent of deceiving or are calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer making his purchases under the ordinary conditions of the particular trade to which the controversy relates. One of the essential requisites in an action to restrain unfair competition is proof of fraud; the intent to deceive, actual or probable must be shown before the right to recover can exist.49

In the present case, no evidence exists showing that KUNNAN ever attempted to pass off the goods it sold (i.e. sportswear, sporting goods and equipment) as those of SUPERIOR. In addition, there is no evidence of bad faith or fraud imputable to KUNNAN in using the disputed trademarks. Specifically, SUPERIOR failed to adduce any evidence to show that KUNNAN by the above-cited acts intended to deceive the public as to the identity of the goods sold or of the manufacturer of the goods sold. In McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc.,50 we held that there can be trademark infringement without unfair competition such as when the infringer discloses on the labels containing the mark that he manufactures the goods, thus preventing the public from being deceived that the goods originate from the trademark owner. In this case, no issue of confusion arises because the same manufactured products are sold; only the ownership of the trademarks is at issue. Furthermore, KUNNAN’s January 29, 1993 notice by its terms prevents the public from being deceived that the goods originated from SUPERIOR since the notice clearly indicated that KUNNAN is the manufacturer of the goods bearing the trademarks "KENNEX" and "PRO KENNEX." This notice states in full:51

NOTICE AND WARNING

Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. is the owner and first user of the internationally-renowned trademarks KENNEX and PRO KENNEX for sportswear and sporting goods and equipment. Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. has registered the trademarks KENNEX and PRO KENNEX in the industrial property offices of at least 31 countries worldwide where KUNNAN Enterprises Ltd. has been selling its sportswear and sporting goods and equipment bearing the KENNEX and PRO KENNEX trademarks.

Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. further informs the public that it had terminated its Distributorship Agreement with Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc. on December 31, 1991. As a result, Superior Commercial

Enterprises, Inc. is no longer authorized to sell sportswear and sporting goods and equipment manufactured by Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. and bearing the trademarks KENNEX and PRO KENNEX.

x x x x

In its place, KUNNAN has appointed SPORTS CONCEPT AND DISTRIBUTORS, INC. as its exclusive Philippine distributor of sportswear and sporting goods and equipment bearing the trademarks KENNEX and PRO KENNEX. The public is advised to buy sporting goods and equipment bearing these trademarks only from SPORTS CONCEPT AND DISTRIBUTORS, INC. to ensure that the products they are buying are manufactured by Kunnan Enterprises Ltd. [Emphasis supplied.]

Finally, with the established ruling that KUNNAN is the rightful owner of the trademarks of the goods that SUPERIOR asserts are being unfairly sold by KUNNAN under trademarks registered in SUPERIOR’s name, the latter is left with no effective right to make a claim. In other words, with the CA’s final ruling in the Registration Cancellation Case, SUPERIOR’s case no longer presents a valid cause of action. For this reason, the unfair competition aspect of the SUPERIOR’s case likewise falls.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc.’s petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. Cost against petitioner Superior Commercial Enterprises, Inc.

G.R. No. 179127 December 24, 2008

IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC., petitioner, vs.SEHWANI, INCORPORATED AND/OR BENITA’S FRITES, INC., respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Decision1 dated 18 July 2006 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785, which reversed the Decision2 dated 23 December 2005 of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in Appeal No. 10-05-01. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, decreed that the IPO Director of Legal Affairs and the IPO Director General do not have jurisdiction over cases involving unfair competition.

Petitioner IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC., a business entity incorporated under the laws of California, United States (US) of America, which is a signatory to the Convention of Paris on Protection of Industrial Property and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Petitioner is engaged mainly in the restaurant business, but it has never engaged in business in the Philippines. 3

Respondents Sehwani, Incorporated and Benita Frites, Inc. are corporations organized in the Philippines.4

On 2 June 1997, petitioner filed trademark and service mark applications with the Bureau of Trademarks (BOT) of the IPO for "IN-N-OUT" and "IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design." Petitioner later found out, through the Official Action Papers issued by the IPO on 31 May 2000, that respondent Sehwani, Incorporated had already obtained Trademark Registration for the mark "IN N OUT (the inside of the letter "O" formed like a star)."5 By virtue of a licensing agreement, Benita Frites, Inc. was able to use the registered mark of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated.

Petitioner eventually filed on 4 June 2001 before the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) of the IPO an administrative complaint against respondents for unfair competition and cancellation of trademark registration. Petitioner averred in its complaint that it is the owner of the trade name IN-N-OUT and the following trademarks: (1) "IN-N-OUT"; (2) "IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design"; and (3) "IN-N-OUT Burger Logo." These trademarks are registered with the Trademark Office of the US and in various parts of the world, are internationally well-known, and have become distinctive of its business and goods through its long and exclusive commercial use.6 Petitioner pointed out that its internationally well-known trademarks and the mark of the respondents are all registered for the restaurant business and are clearly identical and confusingly similar. Petitioner claimed that respondents are making it appear that their goods and services are those of the petitioner, thus, misleading ordinary and unsuspecting consumers that they are purchasing petitioner’s products.7

Following the filing of its complaint, petitioner sent on 18 October 2000 a demand letter directing respondent Sehwani, Incorporated to cease and desist from claiming ownership of the mark "IN-N-OUT" and to voluntarily cancel its trademark registration. In a letter-reply dated 23 October 2000, respondents refused to accede to petitioner’ demand, but expressed willingness to surrender the registration of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated of the "IN N OUT" trademark for a fair and reasonable consideration. 8

Petitioner was able to register the mark "Double Double" on 4 July 2002, based on their application filed on 2 June 1997.9 It alleged that respondents also used this mark, as well as the menu color scheme. Petitioners also averred that respondent Benita’s receipts bore the phrase, "representing IN-N-OUT Burger."10 It should be noted that that although respondent Sehwahi, Incorporated registered a mark which appeared as "IN N OUT (the inside of the letter "O" formed like a star)," respondents used the mark "IN-N-OUT."11

To counter petitioner’s complaint, respondents filed before the BLA-IPO an Answer with Counterclaim. Respondents asserted therein that they had been using the mark "IN N OUT" in the Philippines since 15 October 1982. On 15 November 1991, respondent Sehwani, Incorporated filed with the then Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) an application for the registration of the mark "IN N OUT (the inside of the letter "O" formed like a star)." Upon approval of its application, a certificate of registration of the said mark was issued in the name of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated on 17

December 1993. On 30 August 2000, respondents Sehwani, Incorporated and Benita Frites, Inc. entered into a Licensing Agreement, wherein the former entitled the latter to use its registered mark, "IN N OUT." Respondents asserted that respondent Sehwani, Incorporated, being the registered owner of the mark "IN N OUT," should be accorded the presumption of a valid registration of its mark with the exclusive right to use the same. Respondents argued that none of the grounds provided under the Intellectual Property Code for the cancellation of a certificate of registration are present in this case. Additionally, respondents maintained that petitioner had no legal capacity to sue as it had never operated in the Philippines.12

Subsequently, the IPO Director of Legal Affairs, Estrellita Beltran-Abelardo, rendered a Decision dated 22 December 2003,13 in favor of petitioner. According to said Decision, petitioner had the legal capacity to sue in the Philippines, since its country of origin or domicile was a member of and a signatory to the Convention of Paris on Protection of Industrial Property. And although petitioner had never done business in the Philippines, it was widely known in this country through the use herein of products bearing its corporate and trade name. Petitioner’s marks are internationally well-known, given the world-wide registration of the mark "IN-N-OUT," and its numerous advertisements in various publications and in the Internet. Moreover, the IPO had already declared in a previous inter partes case that "In-N-Out Burger and Arrow Design" was an internationally well-known mark. Given these circumstances, the IPO Director for Legal Affairs pronounced in her Decision that petitioner had the right to use its tradename and mark "IN-N-OUT" in the Philippines to the exclusion of others, including the respondents. However, respondents used the mark "IN N OUT" in good faith and were not guilty of unfair competition, since respondent Sehwani, Incorporated did not evince any intent to ride upon petitioner’s goodwill by copying the mark "IN-N-OUT Burger" exactly. The inside of the letter "O" in the mark used by respondents formed a star. In addition, the simple act of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated of inquiring into the existence of a pending application for registration of the "IN-N-OUT" mark was not deemed fraudulent. The dispositive part of the Decision of the IPO Director for Legal Affairs reads:

With the foregoing disquisition, Certificate of Registration No. 56666 dated 17 December 1993 for the mark "IN-N-OUT" (the inside of the letter "O" formed like a star) issued in favor of Sehwani, Incorporated is hereby CANCELLED. Consequently, respondents Sehwani, Inc. and Benita’s Frites are hereby ordered to permanently cease and desist from using the mark "IN-N-OUT" and "IN-N-OUT BURGER LOGO" on its goods and in its business. With regards the mark "Double-Double," considering that as earlier discussed, the mark has been approved by this Office for publication and that as shown by evidence, Complainant is the owner of the said mark, Respondents are so hereby ordered to permanently cease and desist from using the mark Double-Double. NO COSTS. 14

Both parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision. Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration15 and petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration16 were denied by the IPO Director for Legal Affairs in Resolution No. 2004-1817 dated 28 October 2004 and Resolution No. 2005-05 dated 25 April 2005,18 respectively.

Subsequent events would give rise to two cases before this Court, G.R. No. 171053 and G.R. No. 179127, the case at bar.

G.R. No. 171053

On 29 October 2004, respondents received a copy of Resolution No. 2004-18 dated 28 October 2004 denying their Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, on 18 November 2004, respondents filed an Appeal Memorandum with IPO Director General Emma Francisco (Director General Francisco). However, in an Order dated 7 December 2004, the appeal was dismissed by the IPO Director General for being filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period to appeal.

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, filed on 20 December 2004 and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88004, challenging the dismissal of their appeal by the IPO Director General, which effectively affirmed the Decision dated 22 December 2003 of the IPO Director for Legal Affairs ordering the cancellation of the registration of the disputed trademark in the name of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated and enjoining respondents from using the same. In particular, respondents based their Petition on the following grounds:

THE IPO DIRECTOR GENERAL COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN DISMISSING APPEAL NO. 14-2004-00004 ON A MERE TECHNICALITY

THE BUREAU OF LEGAL AFFAIR’S (SIC) DECISION AND RESOLUTION (1) CANCELLING RESPONDENT’S CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE MARK "IN-N-OUT," AND (2) ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PERMANENTLY CEASE AND DESIST FROM USING THE SUBJECT MARK ON ITS GOODS AND BUSINESS ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND/OR IS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

Respondents thus prayed:

WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully pray that this Honorable Court give due course to this petition, and thereafter order the Office of the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office to reinstate and give due course to [respondent]’s Appeal No. 14-2004-00004.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

On 21 October 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision denying respondents’ Petition in CA-G.R SP No. 88004 and affirming the Order dated 7 December 2004 of the IPO Director General. The appellate court confirmed that respondents’ appeal before the IPO Director General was filed out of time and that it was only proper to cancel the registration of the disputed trademark in the name of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated and to permanently enjoin respondents from using the same. Effectively, the 22 December 2003 Decision of IPO Director of Legal Affairs was likewise affirmed. On 10 November 2005, respondents moved for the reconsideration of the said Decision. On 16 January 2006, the Court of Appeals denied their motion for reconsideration.

Dismayed with the outcome of their petition before the Court of Appeals, respondents raised the matter to the Supreme Court in a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed on 30 January 2006, bearing the title Sehwani, Incorporated v. In-N-Out Burger and docketed as G.R. No. 171053.19

This Court promulgated a Decision in G.R. No. 171053 on 15 October 2007,20 finding that herein respondents failed to file their Appeal Memorandum before the IPO Director General within the period prescribed by law and, consequently, they lost their right to appeal. The Court further affirmed the Decision dated 22 December 2003 of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs holding that herein petitioner had the legal capacity to sue for the protection of its trademarks, even though it was not doing business in the Philippines, and ordering the cancellation of the registration obtained by herein respondent Sehwani, Incorporated of the internationally well-known marks of petitioner, and directing respondents to stop using the said marks. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 171053, but it was denied with finality in a Resolution dated 21 January 2008.

G.R. No. 179127

Upon the denial of its Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated 22 December 2003 of the IPO Director for Legal Affairs, petitioner was able to file a timely appeal before the IPO Director General on 27 May 2005.

During the pendency of petitioner’s appeal before the IPO Director General, the Court of Appeals already rendered on 21 October 2005 its Decision dismissing respondents’ Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 88004.

In a Decision dated 23 December 2005, IPO Director General Adrian Cristobal, Jr. found petitioner’s appeal meritorious and modified the Decision dated 22 December 2003 of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs. The IPO Director General declared that respondents were guilty of unfair competition. Despite respondents’ claims that they had been using the mark since 1982, they only started constructing their restaurant sometime in 2000, after petitioner had already demanded that they desist from claiming ownership of the mark "IN-N-OUT." Moreover, the sole distinction of the mark registered in the name of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated, from those of the petitioner was the star inside the letter "O," a minor difference which still deceived purchasers. Respondents were not even actually using the star in their mark because it was allegedly difficult to print. The IPO Director General expressed his disbelief over the respondents’ reasoning for the non-use of the star symbol. The IPO Director General also considered respondents’ use of petitioner’s registered mark "Double-Double" as a sign of bad faith and an intent to mislead the public. Thus, the IPO Director General ruled that petitioner was entitled to an award for the actual damages it suffered by reason of respondents’ acts of unfair competition, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.21 The fallo of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [herein respondents] are held guilty of unfair competition. Accordingly, Decision No. 2003-02 dated 22 December 2003 is hereby MODIFIED as follows:

[Herein Respondents] are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay [herein petitioner]:

1. Damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR AND 28/100(P212,574.28);

2. Exemplary damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00);

3. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).

All products of [herein respondents] including the labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and materials used by them in committing unfair competition should be without compensation of any sort be seized and disposed of outside the channels of commerce.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of Bureau of Legal Affairs for appropriate action, and the records be returned to her for proper disposition. Further, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau for their information and records purposes.22

Aggrieved, respondents were thus constrained to file on 11 January 2006 before the Court of Appeals another Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92785. Respondents based their second Petition before the appellate court on the following grounds:

THE IPO DIRECTOR GENERAL COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN HOLDING PETITIONERS LIABLE FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION AND IN ORDERING THEM TO PAY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES TO RESPONDENTS

THE IPO DIRECTOR GENERAL COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE BUREAU OF LEGAL AFFAIR’S DECISION (1) CANCELLING PETITIONER’S CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE MARK "IN-N-OUT," AND (2) ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PERMANENTLY CEASE AND DESIST FROM USING THE SUBJECT MARK ON ITS GOODS AND BUSINESS

Respondents assailed before the appellate court the foregoing 23 December 2005 Decision of the IPO Director General, alleging that their use of the disputed mark was not tainted with fraudulent intent; hence, they should not be held liable for damages. They argued that petitioner had never entered into any transaction involving its goods and services in the Philippines and, therefore, could not claim that its goods and services had already been identified in the mind of the public. Respondents added that the disputed mark was not well-known. Finally, they maintained that petitioner’s complaint was already barred by laches.23

At the end of their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785, respondents presented the following prayer:

WHEREFORE, [respondents herein] respectfully pray that this Honorable Court:

(a) upon the filing of this petition, issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the IPO and [petitioner], their agents, successors and assigns, from executing, enforcing and implementing the IPO Director General’s Decision dated 23 December 2005, which modified the Decision No. 2003-02 dated 22 December 2003 of the BLA, until further orders from this Honorable Court.

(b) after notice and hearing, enjoin the IPO and [petitioner], their agents, successors and assigns, from executing, enforcing and implementing the Decision dated 23 December 2005 of the Director General of the IPO in IPV No. 10-2001-00004 and to maintain the status quo ante pending the resolution of the merits of this petition; and

(c) after giving due course to this petition:

(i) reverse and set aside the Decision dated 23 December 2005 of the Director General of the IPO in IPV No. 10-2001-00004 finding the [respondents] guilty of unfair competition and awarding damages and attorney’s fees to the respondent

(ii) in lieu thereof, affirm Decision No. 2003-02 of the BLA dated 22 December 2003 and Resolution No. 2005-05 of the BLA dated 25 April 2005, insofar as it finds [respondents] not guilty of unfair competition and hence not liable to the [petitioner] for damages and attorney’s fees;

(iii) reverse Decision No. 2003-02 of the BLA dated 22 December 2003, and Resolution No. 2005-05 of the BLA dated 25 April 2005, insofar as it upheld [petitioner]’s legal capacity to sue; that [petitioner]’s trademarks are well-known; and that respondent has the exclusive right to use the same; and

(iv) make the injunction permanent.

[Respondents] also pray for other reliefs, as may deemed just or equitable.24

On 18 July 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Decision25 in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785 reversing the Decision dated 23 December 2005 of the IPO Director General.

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision, initially addressed petitioner’s assertion that respondents had committed forum shopping by the institution of CA-G.R. SP No. 88004 and CA-G.R. SP No. 92785. It ruled that respondents were not guilty of forum shopping, distinguishing between the respondents’ two Petitions. The subject of Respondents’ Petition in CA-G.R SP No. 88004 was the 7 December 2004 Decision of the IPO Director General dismissing respondents’ appeal of the 22 December 2003 Decision of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs. Respondents questioned therein the cancellation of the trademark registration of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated and the order permanently enjoining respondents from using the disputed trademark. Respondents’ Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785 sought the review of the 23 December 2005 Decision of the IPO Director General partially modifying the 22 December 2003

Decision of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs. Respondents raised different issues in their second petition before the appellate court, mainly concerning the finding of the IPO Director General that respondents were guilty of unfair competition and the awarding of actual and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, to petitioner.

The Court of Appeals then proceeded to resolve CA-G.R. SP No. 92785 on jurisdictional grounds not raised by the parties. The appellate court declared that Section 163 of the Intellectual Property Code specifically confers upon the regular courts, and not the BLA-IPO, sole jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving provisions of the Intellectual Property Code, particularly trademarks. Consequently, the IPO Director General had no jurisdiction to rule in its Decision dated 23 December 2005 on supposed violations of these provisions of the Intellectual Property Code.

In the end, the Court of Appeals decreed:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 23 December 2005 rendered by the Director General of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines in Appeal No. 10-05-01 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Insofar as they pertain to acts governed by Article 168 of R.A. 8293 and other sections enumerated in Section 163 of the same Code, respondent’s claims in its Complaint docketed as IPV No. 10-2001-00004 are hereby DISMISSED.26

The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated 31 July 2007,27 denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of its aforementioned Decision.

Hence, the present Petition, where petitioner raises the following issues:

I

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED DECISION DATED 18 JULY 2006 AND RESOLUTION DATED 31 JULY 2007 DECLARING THAT THE IPO HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS VIOLATIONS;

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTANT PETITION IS FORMALLY DEFECTIVE; AND

III

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED DECISION DATED 18 JULY 2006 AND RESOLUTION DATED 31 JULY 2007 DECLARING THAT SEHWANI AND BENITA ARE NOT GUILTY OF: (A) SUBMITTING A PATENTLY FALSE CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING; AND (B) FORUM SHOPPING PROPER.28

As previously narrated herein, on 15 October 2007, during the pendency of the present Petition, this Court already promulgated its Decision29 in G.R. No. 171053 on 15 October 2007, which affirmed the IPO Director General’s dismissal of respondents’ appeal for being filed beyond the reglementary period, and left the 22 December 2003 Decision of the IPO Director for Legal Affairs, canceling the trademark registration of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated and enjoining respondents from using the disputed marks.

Before discussing the merits of this case, this Court must first rule on the procedural flaws that each party has attributed to the other.

Formal Defects of the Petition

Respondents contend that the Verification/Certification executed by Atty. Edmund Jason Barranda of Villaraza and Angangco, which petitioner attached to the present Petition, is defective and should result in the dismissal of the said Petition.

Respondents point out that the Secretary’s Certificate executed by Arnold M. Wensinger on 20 August 2007, stating that petitioner had authorized the lawyers of Villaraza and Angangco to represent it in the present Petition and to sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping, among other acts, was not properly notarized. The jurat of the aforementioned Secretary’s Certificate reads:

Subscribed and sworn to me this 20th day of August 2007 in Irving California.

Rachel A. Blake (Sgd.)Notary Public30

Respondents aver that the said Secretary’s Certificate cannot properly authorize Atty. Barranda to sign the Verification/Certification on behalf of petitioner because the notary public Rachel A. Blake failed to state that: (1) petitioner’s Corporate Secretary, Mr. Wensinger, was known to her; (2) he was the same person who acknowledged the instrument; and (3) he acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed, as required under Section 2 of Act No. 2103 and Landingin v. Republic of the Philippines.31

Respondents likewise impugn the validity of the notarial certificate of Atty. Aldrich Fitz B. Uy, on Atty. Baranda’s Verification/Certification attached to the instant Petition, noting the absence of (1) the serial number of the commission of the notary public; (2) the office address of the notary public; (3) the roll of attorneys’ number and the IBP membership number; and (4) a statement that the Verification/Certification was notarized within the notary public’s territorial jurisdiction, as required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. 32

Section 2 of Act No. 2103 and Landingin v. Republic of the Philippines are not applicable to the present case. The requirements enumerated therein refer to documents which require an acknowledgement, and not a mere jurat.

A jurat is that part of an affidavit in which the notary certifies that before him/her, the document was subscribed and sworn to by the executor. Ordinarily, the language of the jurat should avow that the document was subscribed and sworn to before the notary public. In contrast, an acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed. It involves an extra step undertaken whereby the signor actually declares to the notary that the executor of a document has attested to the notary that the same is his/her own free act and deed.33 A Secretary’s Certificate, as that executed by petitioner in favor of the lawyers of the Angangco and Villaraza law office, only requires a jurat.34

Even assuming that the Secretary’s Certificate was flawed, Atty. Barranda may still sign the Verification attached to the Petition at bar. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. 35 The party itself need not sign the verification. A party’s representative, lawyer or any other person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.36 Atty. Barranda, as petitioner’s counsel, was in the position to verify the truth and correctness of the allegations of the present Petition. Hence, the Verification signed by Atty. Barranda substantially complies with the formal requirements for such.

Moreover, the Court deems it proper not to focus on the supposed technical infirmities of Atty. Baranda’s Verification. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition has been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement. In the interest of substantial justice, strict observance of procedural rules may be dispensed with for compelling reasons.37 The vital issues raised in the instant Petition on the jurisdiction of the IPO Director for Legal Affairs and the IPO Director General over trademark cases justify the liberal application of the rules, so that the Court may give the said Petition due course and resolve the same on the merits.

This Court agrees, nevertheless, that the notaries public, Rachel A. Blake and Aldrich Fitz B. Uy, were less than careful with their jurats or notarial certificates. Parties and their counsel should take care not to abuse the Court’s zeal to resolve cases on their merits. Notaries public in the Philippines are reminded to exert utmost care and effort in complying with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Parties and their counsel are further charged with the responsibility of ensuring that documents notarized abroad be in their proper form before presenting said documents before Philippine courts.

Forum Shopping

Petitioner next avers that respondents are guilty of forum shopping in filing the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785, following their earlier filing of the Petition in CA-G.R SP No. 88004. Petitioner also asserts that respondents were guilty of submitting to the Court of Appeals a patently false Certification of Non-forum Shopping in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785, when they failed to mention therein the pendency of CA-G.R SP No. 88004.

Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. It is an act of malpractice and is prohibited and condemned as trifling with courts and abusing their processes. In determining whether or not there is forum shopping, what is important is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative bodies to rule on the same or related causes and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different bodies upon the same issues.38

Forum shopping is present when, in two or more cases pending, there is identity of (1) parties (2) rights or causes of action and reliefs prayed for, and (3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.39

After a cursory look into the two Petitions in CA-G.R. SP No. 88004 and CA-G.R. SP No. 92785, it would at first seem that respondents are guilty of forum shopping.

There is no question that both Petitions involved identical parties, and raised at least one similar ground for which they sought the same relief. Among the grounds stated by the respondents for their Petition in CA-G.R SP No. 88004 was that "[T]he Bureau of Legal Affair’s (sic) Decision and Resolution (1) canceling [herein respondent Sehwani, Incorporated]’s certificate of registration for the mark ‘IN-N-OUT’ and (2) ordering [herein respondents] to permanently cease and desist from using the subject mark on its goods and business are contrary to law and/or is (sic) not supported by evidence."40 The same ground was again invoked by respondents in their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785, rephrased as follows: "The IPO Director General committed grave error in affirming the Bureau of Legal Affair’s (sic) Decision (1) canceling [herein respondent Sehwani, Incorporated]’s certificate of registration for the mark "IN-N-OUT," and (2) ordering [herein respondents] to permanently cease and desist from using the subject mark on its goods and business."41 Both Petitions, in effect, seek the reversal of the 22 December 2003 Decision of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs. Undoubtedly, a judgment in either one of these Petitions affirming or reversing the said Decision of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs based on the merits thereof would bar the Court of Appeals from making a contrary ruling in the other Petition, under the principle of res judicata.

Upon a closer scrutiny of the two Petitions, however, the Court takes notice of one issue which respondents did not raise in CA-G.R. SP No. 88004, but can be found in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785, i.e., whether respondents are liable for unfair competition. Hence, respondents seek additional reliefs in CA-

G.R. SP No. 92785, seeking the reversal of the finding of the IPO Director General that they are guilty of unfair competition, and the nullification of the award of damages in favor of petitioner resulting from said finding. Undoubtedly, respondents could not have raised the issue of unfair competition in CA-G.R. SP No. 88004 because at the time they filed their Petition therein on 28 December 2004, the IPO Director General had not yet rendered its Decision dated 23 December 2005 wherein it ruled that respondents were guilty thereof and awarded damages to petitioner.

In arguing in their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785 that they are not liable for unfair competition, it is only predictable, although not necessarily legally tenable, for respondents to reassert their right to register, own, and use the disputed mark. Respondents again raise the issue of who has the better right to the disputed mark, because their defense from the award of damages for unfair competition depends on the resolution of said issue in their favor. While this reasoning may be legally unsound, this Court cannot readily presume bad faith on the part of respondents in filing their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785; or hold that respondents breached the rule on forum shopping by the mere filing of the second petition before the Court of Appeals.

True, respondents should have referred to CA-G.R. SP No. 88004 in the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, which they attached to their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785. Nonetheless, the factual background of this case and the importance of resolving the jurisdictional and substantive issues raised herein, justify the relaxation of another procedural rule. Although the submission of a certificate against forum shopping is deemed obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.42 Hence, in this case in which such a certification was in fact submitted, only it was defective, the Court may still refuse to dismiss and, instead, give due course to the Petition in light of attendant exceptional circumstances.

The parties and their counsel, however, are once again warned against taking procedural rules lightly. It will do them well to remember that the Courts have taken a stricter stance against the disregard of procedural rules, especially in connection with the submission of the certificate against forum shopping, and it will not hesitate to dismiss a Petition for non-compliance therewith in the absence of justifiable circumstances.

The Jurisdiction of the IPO

The Court now proceeds to resolve an important issue which arose from the Court of Appeals Decision dated 18 July 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785. In the afore-stated Decision, the Court of Appeals adjudged that the IPO Director for Legal Affairs and the IPO Director General had no jurisdiction over the administrative proceedings below to rule on issue of unfair competition, because Section 163 of the Intellectual Property Code confers jurisdiction over particular provisions in the law on trademarks on regular courts exclusively. According to the said provision:

Section 163. Jurisdiction of Court.–All actions under Sections 150, 155, 164, and 166 to 169 shall be brought before the proper courts with appropriate jurisdiction under existing laws.

The provisions referred to in Section 163 are: Section 150 on License Contracts; Section 155 on Remedies on Infringement; Section 164 on Notice of Filing Suit Given to the Director; Section 166 on Goods Bearing Infringing Marks or Trade Names; Section 167 on Collective Marks; Section 168 on Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulation and Remedies; and Section 169 on False Designations of Origin, False Description or Representation.

The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals.

Section 10 of the Intellectual Property Code specifically identifies the functions of the Bureau of Legal Affairs, thus:

Section 10. The Bureau of Legal Affairs.–The Bureau of Legal Affairs shall have the following functions:

10.1 Hear and decide opposition to the application for registration of marks; cancellation of trademarks; subject to the provisions of Section 64, cancellation of patents and utility models, and industrial designs; and petitions for compulsory licensing of patents;

10.2 (a) Exercise original jurisdiction in administrative complaints for violations of laws involving intellectual property rights; Provided, That its jurisdiction is limited to complaints where the total damages claimed are not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000): Provided, futher, That availment of the provisional remedies may be granted in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Director of Legal Affairs shall have the power to hold and punish for contempt all those who disregard orders or writs issued in the course of the proceedings.

(b) After formal investigation, the Director for Legal Affairs may impose one (1) or more of the following administrative penalties:

(i) The issuance of a cease and desist order which shall specify the acts that the respondent shall cease and desist from and shall require him to submit a compliance report within a reasonable time which shall be fixed in the order;

(ii) The acceptance of a voluntary assurance of compliance or discontinuance as may be imposed. Such voluntary assurance may include one or more of the following:

(1) An assurance to comply with the provisions of the intellectual property law violated;

(2) An assurance to refrain from engaging in unlawful and unfair acts and practices subject of the formal investigation

(3) An assurance to recall, replace, repair, or refund the money value of defective goods distributed in commerce; and

(4) An assurance to reimburse the complainant the expenses and costs incurred in prosecuting the case in the Bureau of Legal Affairs.

The Director of Legal Affairs may also require the respondent to submit periodic compliance reports and file a bond to guarantee compliance of his undertaking.

(iii) The condemnation or seizure of products which are subject of the offense. The goods seized hereunder shall be disposed of in such manner as may be deemed appropriate by the Director of Legal Affairs, such as by sale, donation to distressed local governments or to charitable or relief institutions, exportation, recycling into other goods, or any combination thereof, under such guidelines as he may provide;

(iv) The forfeiture of paraphernalia and all real and personal properties which have been used in the commission of the offense;

(v) The imposition of administrative fines in such amount as deemed reasonable by the Director of Legal Affairs, which shall in no case be less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) nor more than One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000). In addition, an additional fine of not more than One thousand pesos (P1,000) shall be imposed for each day of continuing violation;

(vi) The cancellation of any permit, license, authority, or registration which may have been granted by the Office, or the suspension of the validity thereof for such period of time as the Director of Legal Affairs may deem reasonable which shall not exceed one (1) year;

(vii) The withholding of any permit, license, authority, or registration which is being secured by the respondent from the Office;

(viii) The assessment of damages;

(ix) Censure; and

(x) Other analogous penalties or sanctions.

10.3 The Director General may by Regulations establish the procedure to govern the implementation of this Section.43 (Emphasis provided.)

Unquestionably, petitioner’s complaint, which seeks the cancellation of the disputed mark in the name of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated, and damages for violation of petitioner’s intellectual property rights, falls within the jurisdiction of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs.

The Intellectual Property Code also expressly recognizes the appellate jurisdiction of the IPO Director General over the decisions of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs, to wit:

Section 7. The Director General and Deputies Director General. 7.1 Fuctions.–The Director General shall exercise the following powers and functions:

x x x x

b) Exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all decisions rendered by the Director of Legal Affairs, the Director of Patents, the Director of Trademarks, and the Director of Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau. The decisions of the Director General in the exercise of his appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decisions of the Director of Patents, and the Director of Trademarks shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Rules of Court; and those in respect of the decisions of the Director of Documentation, Information and Technology Transfer Bureau shall be appealable to the Secretary of Trade and Industry;

The Court of Appeals erroneously reasoned that Section 10(a) of the Intellectual Property Code, conferring upon the BLA-IPO jurisdiction over administrative complaints for violations of intellectual property rights, is a general provision, over which the specific provision of Section 163 of the same Code, found under Part III thereof particularly governing trademarks, service marks, and tradenames, must prevail. Proceeding therefrom, the Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded that all actions involving trademarks, including charges of unfair competition, are under the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts.

Such interpretation is not supported by the provisions of the Intellectual Property Code. While Section 163 thereof vests in civil courts jurisdiction over cases of unfair competition, nothing in the said section states that the regular courts have sole jurisdiction over unfair competition cases, to the exclusion of administrative bodies. On the contrary, Sections 160 and 170, which are also found under Part III of the Intellectual Property Code, recognize the concurrent jurisdiction of civil courts and the IPO over unfair competition cases. These two provisions read:

Section 160. Right of Foreign Corporation to Sue in Trademark or Service Mark Enforcement Action.–Any foreign national or juridical person who meets the requirements of Section 3 of this Act and does not engage in business in the Philippines may bring a civil or administrative action hereunder for opposition, cancellation, infringement, unfair competition, or false designation of origin and false description, whether or not it is licensed to do business in the Philippines under existing laws.

x x x x

Section 170. Penalties.–Independent of the civil and administrative sanctions imposed by law, a criminal penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years to five (5) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000), shall be imposed on any person who is found guilty of committing any of the acts mentioned in Section 155, Section168, and Subsection169.1.

Based on the foregoing discussion, the IPO Director of Legal Affairs had jurisdiction to decide the petitioner’s administrative case against respondents and the IPO Director General had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal of the judgment of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs.

Unfair Competition

The Court will no longer touch on the issue of the validity or propriety of the 22 December 2003 Decision of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs which: (1) directed the cancellation of the certificate of registration of respondent Sehwani, Incorporated for the mark "IN-N-OUT" and (2) ordered respondents to permanently cease and desist from using the disputed mark on its goods and business. Such an issue has already been settled by this Court in its final and executory Decision dated 15 October 2007 in G.R. No. 171053, Sehwani, Incorporated v. In-N-Out Burger,44 ultimately affirming the foregoing judgment of the IPO Director of Legal Affairs. That petitioner has the superior right to own and use the "IN-N-OUT" trademarks vis-à-vis respondents is a finding which this Court may no longer disturb under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. In conclusiveness of judgment, any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims, demands, purposes, or subject matters of the two actions are the same.45

Thus, the only remaining issue for this Court to resolve is whether the IPO Director General correctly found respondents guilty of unfair competition for which he awarded damages to petitioner.

The essential elements of an action for unfair competition are (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor. The confusing similarity may or may not result from similarity in the marks, but may result from other external factors in the packaging or presentation of the goods. The intent to deceive and defraud may be inferred from the similarity of the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public. Actual fraudulent intent need not be shown.46

In his Decision dated 23 December 2005, the IPO Director General ably explains the basis for his finding of the existence of unfair competition in this case, viz:

The evidence on record shows that the [herein respondents] were not using their registered trademark but that of the [petitioner]. [Respondent] SEHWANI, INC. was issued a Certificate of Registration for IN N OUT (with the Inside of the Letter "O" Formed like a Star) for restaurant business in 1993. The restaurant opened only in 2000 but under the name IN-N-OUT BURGER. Apparently, the [respondents] started constructing the restaurant only after the [petitioner] demanded that the latter desist from claiming ownership of the mark IN-N-OUT and voluntarily cancel their trademark registration. Moreover, [respondents] are also using [petitioner’s] registered mark Double-Double for use on hamburger products. In fact, the burger wrappers and the French fries receptacles the [respondents] are using do

not bear the mark registered by the [respondent], but the [petitioner’s] IN-N-OUT Burger’s name and trademark IN-N-OUT with Arrow design.

There is no evidence that the [respondents] were authorized by the [petitioner] to use the latter’s marks in the business. [Respondents’] explanation that they are not using their own registered trademark due to the difficulty in printing the "star" does not justify the unauthorized use of the [petitioner’s] trademark instead.

Further, [respondents] are giving their products the general appearance that would likely influence purchasers to believe that these products are those of the [petitioner]. The intention to deceive may be inferred from the similarity of the goods as packed and offered for sale, and, thus, action will lie to restrain such unfair competition. x x x.

x x x x

[Respondents’] use of IN-N-OUT BURGER in busineses signages reveals fraudulent intent to deceive purchasers. Exhibit "GG," which shows the business establishment of [respondents] illustrates the imitation of [petitioner’s] corporate name IN-N-OUT and signage IN-N-OUT BURGER. Even the Director noticed it and held:

"We also note that In-N-Out Burger is likewise, [petitioner’s] corporate name. It has used the "IN-N-OUT" Burger name in its restaurant business in Baldwin Park, California in the United States of America since 1948. Thus it has the exclusive right to use the tradenems "In-N-Out" Burger in the Philippines and the respondents’ are unlawfully using and appropriating the same."

The Office cannot give credence to the [respondent’s] claim of good faith and that they have openly and continuously used the subject mark since 1982 and is (sic) in the process of expanding its business. They contend that assuming that there is value in the foreign registrations presented as evidence by the [petitioner], the purported exclusive right to the use of the subject mark based on such foreign registrations is not essential to a right of action for unfair competition. [Respondents] also claim that actual or probable deception and confusion on the part of customers by reason of respondents’ practices must always appear, and in the present case, the BLA has found none. This Office finds the arguments untenable.

In contrast, the [respondents] have the burden of evidence to prove that they do not have fraudulent intent in using the mark IN-N-OUT. To prove their good faith, [respondents] could have easily offered evidence of use of their registered trademark, which they claimed to be using as early as 1982, but did not.

[Respondents] also failed to explain why they are using the marks of [petitioner] particularly DOUBLE DOUBLE, and the mark IN-N-OUT Burger and Arrow Design. Even in their listing of menus, [respondents] used [Appellants’] marks of DOUBLE DOUBLE and IN-N-OUT Burger and Arrow Design. In addition, in the

wrappers and receptacles being used by the [respondents] which also contained the marks of the [petitioner], there is no notice in such wrappers and receptacles that the hamburger and French fries are products of the [respondents]. Furthermore, the receipts issued by the [respondents] even indicate "representing IN-N-OUT." These acts cannot be considered acts in good faith. 47

Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule." A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. As defined, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.48 As recounted by the IPO Director General in his decision, there is more than enough substantial evidence to support his finding that respondents are guilty of unfair competition.

With such finding, the award of damages in favor of petitioner is but proper. This is in accordance with Section 168.4 of the Intellectual Property Code, which provides that the remedies under Sections 156, 157 and 161 for infringement shall apply mutatis mutandis to unfair competition. The remedies provided under Section 156 include the right to damages, to be computed in the following manner:

Section 156. Actions, and Damages and Injunction for Infringement.–156.1 The owner of a registered mark may recover damages from any person who infringes his rights, and the measure of the damages suffered shall be either the reasonable profit which the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not infringed his rights, or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the infringement, or in the event such measure of damages cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty, then the court may award as damages a reasonable percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant or the value of the services in connection with which the mark or trade name was used in the infringement of the rights of the complaining party.

In the present case, the Court deems it just and fair that the IPO Director General computed the damages due to petitioner by applying the reasonable percentage of 30% to the respondents’ gross sales, and then doubling the amount thereof on account of respondents’ actual intent to mislead the public or defraud the petitioner,49 thus, arriving at the amount of actual damages of P212,574.28.

Taking into account the deliberate intent of respondents to engage in unfair competition, it is only proper that petitioner be awarded exemplary damages. Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that such damages may be imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, such as the enhancement of the protection accorded to intellectual property and the prevention of similar acts of unfair competition. However, exemplary damages are not meant to enrich one party or to impoverish another, but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious action.50 While there is no hard and fast rule in determining the fair amount of exemplary damages, the award of exemplary damages should be commensurate with the actual loss or injury suffered.51 Thus, exemplary damages of P500,000.00 should be reduced to P250,000.00 which more closely approximates the actual damages awarded.

In accordance with Article 2208(1) of the Civil Code, attorney’s fees may likewise be awarded to petitioner since exemplary damages are awarded to it. Petitioner was compelled to protect its rights over the disputed mark. The amount of P500,000.00 is more than reasonable, given the fact that the case has dragged on for more than seven years, despite the respondent’s failure to present countervailing evidence. Considering moreover the reputation of petitioner’s counsel, the actual attorney’s fees paid by petitioner would far exceed the amount that was awarded to it.52

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92785, promulgated on 18 July 2006, is REVERSED. The Decision of the IPO Director General, dated 23 December 2005, is hereby REINSTATED IN PART, with the modification that the amount of exemplary damages awarded be reduced to P250,000.00.

G.R. No. L-10619 February 10, 1916

COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

Rohde and Wright for appellant.Gilbert, Haussermann, Cohn, and Fisher for appellee.

MORELAND, J.:

This is a proceeding to punish the defendant for contempt of the court in violating a permanent injunction issued against it in the above entitled action.

The action was one, it is alleged by plaintiff, to recover damages for the violation of the trade-name "Isabela" and for unfair competition based on the same facts and to obtain a perpetual injunction against the defendant prohibiting it from using said trade-name or one confusingly similar thereto. The trial court found in the main action that the plaintiff has appropriated and was entitled to the exclusive use of the word "Isabela" as a trade-mark in connection with its cigarettes and that the word Isabelas as employed in the phrases "Alhambra Isabelas" used by the defendant on its cigarettes was a violation of the trade-mark "Isabela" the exclusive property rights in which belonged to the plaintiff. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from the use of the word "Isabelas" or any word confusingly similar thereto, as follows:

Wherefore, the defendant, the Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, attorneys, employees, or other representatives are hereby perpetually prohibited from employing or making use of the word 'Isabelas' or any equivalent thereof, or of any other word or name confusingly similar thereto as a distinguishing brand or name for cigarettes manufactured by said defendant.

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court declaring plaintiff's rights in the word "Isabela" and prohibiting it from the use thereof and made a motion to suspend the operation of the injunction until the case could be resolved finally on appeal. That motion was denied and the defendant later made the same motion to the Supreme Court, which was also denied. In spite of the existence of the injunction the defendant continued to use the words "Alhambra Isabelas" on its cigarettes; and plaintiff began a proceeding in the trial court to punish the defendant for a violation of the injunction. A hearing was had and the defendant was found guilty of competent of court for the violation of the injunction referred to. A fine of P500 was imposed with costs of the proceedings.

Thereafter the defendant placed on its cigarettes the words, "Alhambra Isabela," simply changing the word "Isabelas" to "Isabela." It also placed on the back of the packages the words "Blue Ribbon Cigarillos" as a distinctive name or brand for its cigarettes. Believing that defendant was still violating the injunction, plaintiff began another proceeding in the Court of First Instance to punish it for contempt. After hearing the court again found the defendant guilty of violating the injunction and sentenced it to pay a fine of P1,000. From that judgment defendant appealed to this court and that is the appeal we are now considering.

The appellant contends here: First, that the injunction is indefinite and uncertain to such an extent that a person of ordinary intelligence would be unable to comply with it and still protect his acknowledged rights; second, that the injunction is void for the reason that the judgment of the court on which it is based is not responsive to the pleadings or to the evidence in the case and has nothing in the record to support it; third, that the court erred in assuming jurisdiction and fining defendant after an appeal had been taken from the judgment of the court and the perpetual need no particular discussion.

Discussing these questions generally it may be admitted, as we stated in our decision in the main case (R.G. No. 10251, ante, p. 485) that, while the complaint set forth an action on trade-name and for unfair competition, accepting the plaintiff's interpretation of it, the trial court based its judgment on the violation of a trade-mark, although the complaint contained no allegation with respect to a trade-mark and no issue was joined on that subject by the pleadings and no evidence was introduced on the trial with respect thereto. There was, however, some evidence in the case with respect to the plaintiff's ownership of the trade-name "Isabela," for the violation of which the plaintiff was suing, and there was some evidence which might support an action of unfair competition, if such an action could be sustained under the statute. Therefore, although the judgment of the trial court was based on the violation of a trade-mark, there was some evidence to sustain the judgment if it had been founded on a violation of the trade-name or on unfair competition. The judgment, as we have already found in the main case, was erroneous and was reversed for that reason; but having some evidence to sustain it, it was not void and the injunction issued in that action was one which the court had power to issue. Although the judgment was clearly erroneous and without basis in law, it was, nevertheless, a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction which had authority to render that particular judgment and to issue a permanent injunction thereon.

The appellant complains of that portion of the injunction which prohibits the defendant from using the word "Isabelas" as a distinguishing brand or name, alleging that it did not use the word as a distinguishing brand or name but simply as a word describing the quality of tobacco which composed the cigarettes to which the name was attached. While we agree with defendant that the word "Isabela is primarily a geographical name and descriptive word, that fact does not signify that an injunction prohibiting the use of that word is void for that reason. That was a matter which went to the merits of the principal action and not to the validity or enforceability of the permanent injunction issued in that action. Much of appellant's argument is based on facts which, while material to the merits of the original controversy, have nothing to do with the violation of the injunction. The question is not was the judgment correct on the law and the facts, but was it a valid judgment? If so, and if the injunction issued thereon was definite and certain and was within the subject matter of the judgment, the defendant was bound to obey it, however, erroneous it may have been.

That the injunction was sufficiently definite and certain with reference to the matter in controversy there can be no doubt. It clearly prohibits the defendant from the use of the word "Isabelas" or any word or name confusingly similar thereto as a distinguishing brand or name of its cigarettes. It would be difficult to make language clearer. That it is not so indefinite and vague that the defendant was misled with respect to the acts with it prohibited is demonstrated by defendant itself. It made no effort to change the word "Isabelas" which had been the whole subject matter of the litigation and which was the word expressly set out in the injunction; but, rather, it continued to use the same word, reducing it from the plural to the singular as the only change. It did not relocate the word on its cigarettes or change its form or size. It left it in precisely the form, shape and style and in precisely the place as before.

With such facts before us the defendant will not be permitted to say that it sought to use a different word or phrase and that by reason of the indefiniteness of the injunction it fell into error, although in good faith it attempted to obey its terms. It continued to use the prohibited word in precisely the manner prior to the injunction; and it cannot be said that it was misled by the vagueness of the injunction, for, however vague the injunction may have been, the defendant could not have been ignorant of the fact that it had been prohibited from using the word "Isabelas" the word that had been the very center of the controversy in which the injunction was issued.

We do not believe that the imposition of fine of P1,000 is violation of law on the part of the trial court. It was the second violation and the defendant should have been punished more severely than for the first violation.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.