050. Sta.

Ana v Caliwat

Aug.31, 1968

Reyes JBL, J.

Facts:

Florentino Maliway filed an application for the registration of the trademark

FLORMANN, used on shirts, pants, jackets and shoes for ladies, men and children,
claiming first use thereof on July 6, 1955.

In 1962, Jose P. Sta. Ana filed an application for the registration of the trade
name FLORMEN SHOE MANUFACTURERS, used in the business of manufacturing
shoes. He claimed that he first used the trade name on April 8, 1959.

Director of Patnents declared an interference in view of the admittedly

confusing similarity, and ruled in facor of Maliwat’s application and denied that of
Sta. Ana. Hence this petition for review.

Issues:

1. WON DOP erred in finding that Maliwat is the prior adopter. (No)
2. WON DOP should have allowed the registration of Sta. Ana to use Flormen
as a trademark, so long as he doesn’t use it on shoes. (No)

Ratio:

1. The parties stipulated that fact already. The findings can no longer be
contradicted.
2. ********PERTINENT PART***********

Modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a trade mark
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 trademark or tradename:

a. 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, or
b. Is in any way connected with the activities of the infringer; or
c. When it forestalls the normal potential expansion of his business.

It is on this basis that the Director of Patents adverted to the practice

“among local tailors and haberdashers to branch out into articles of
manufacture which have some direct relationship to garments or attire to
complete one’s wardrobe.”
 Mere dissimilarity of goods should not preclude relief where the junior
user’s goods are not too different or remote from any that the owner would be
likely to make or sell.

Here, wearing apparel is not so far removed from shoes as to preclude relief.

Sec.4 (d) of RA 166 (the Trademark Law) prevents the registration of a

mark or tradename which resembles a mark or tradename registered int eh
Phlippines or a mark or tradename 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 purhcasers.

That provision does not require that the articles of manufacture of the
previous and the later user possess the same descriptive properties or should
fall into the same categories as to ar the latter from registering his mark in the
principal register. The meat of the matter is the likelihood of confusion or
deception upon purchasers of the junior user of the mark. Here, the similarity
of “Flormann” and “Flormen” is admitted. Thus, Maliway has better right to
use the mark.

Decision affirmed.

Gabe.