ANG vs.

TEODORO
G.R. No. L-48226
December 14, 1942

FACTS:
Respondent Teodoro has long been using ‘Ang Tibay’ both as trademark
and tradename in the manufacture and sale of its slippers, shoes and indoor
baseballs when he formally registered it. Meanwhile, petitioner Ang registered
the same trademark ‘Ang Tibay’ for its products of pants and shirts. Respondent
moved to cancel the registration of petitioner’s mark. The trial court found for
petitioner Ang. CA reversed the judgment. Petitioner argues the validity of the
mark being descriptive; that it had not acquired secondary meaning in favor of
respondent; and that there can be no infringement/unfair competition because
the goods are not similar.

ISSUES:
Whether or not there is trademark infringement and/or unfair competition
between unrelated goods.

RULING:
YES. In the present state of development of the law on Trade-Marks, Unfair
Competition, and Unfair Trading, the test employed by the courts to determine
whether noncompeting goods are or are not of the same class is confusion as to
the origin of the goods of the second user. Although two noncompeting articles
may be classified under two different classes by the Patent Office because they
are deemed not to possess the same descriptive properties, they would,
nevertheless, be held by the courts to belong to the same class if the
simultaneous use on them of identical or closely similar trade-marks would be
likely to cause confusion as to the origin, or personal source, of the second user’s
goods. They would be considered as not falling under the same class only if they
are so dissimilar or so foreign to each other as to make it unlikely that the
purchaser would think the first user made the second user’s goods. The Court of
Appeals found in this case that by uninterrupted and exclusive use since 1910 of
respondent’s registered trade-mark on slippers and shoes manufactured by him,
it has come to indicate the origin and ownership of said goods. It is certainly not
farfetched to surmise that the selection by petitioner of the same trade-mark for
pants and shirts was motivated by a desire to get a free ride on the reputation
and selling power it has acquired at the hands of the respondent.