IPL Cases (Full Text)

8/13/2019 IPL Cases (Full Text)

1/49

BERRIS AGRICULTURALCO., INC.,

Petitioner,

- versus -

NORVY ABYADANG,Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACHURA, J .:

This petition for review[1] on certiorari under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court seeks the reversal of the e!ision dated

"pril 14, #$$%[#] and the Resolution dated &une 1%, #$$%['] of

the Court of "ppeals (C") in C"-*.R. +P o. #%.

The ante!edents

/n &anuar0 1, #$$4, respondent orv0 ". "20adan3

("20adan3), proprietor of + orthern /r3ani! ertilier, with

address at o. 4' 6ower 78, 9a3uio Cit0, filed with the

:ntelle!tual Propert0 /ffi!e (:P/) a trade;ark appli!ation for

the ;ark for use in !onne!tion with un3i!ide(Class 5) with a!tive in3redient %$? 8an!oe2. The

appli!ation, under "ppli!ation +erial o. 4-#$$4-$$45$, was

3iven due !ourse and was pu2lished in the :P/ e-*aette for

opposition on &ul0 #%, #$$5.

/n "u3ust 1@, #$$5, petitioner 9erris "3ri!ultural Co.,

:n!. (9erris), with 2usiness address in 9aran3a0 8asiit,

Calauan, 6a3una, filed with the :P/ 9ureau of 6e3al "ffairs

(:P/-96") a Aerified oti!e of /pposition[4] a3ainst the ;ark

under appli!ation alle3edl0 2e!ause is si;ilar

andBor !onfusin3l0 si;ilar to its re3istered trade;ark also used for un3i!ide (Class 5) with a!tive

in3redient %$? 8an!oe2. The opposition was do!keted as

:PC o. 14-#$$5-$$$.

"fter an ex!han3e of pleadin3s, on "pril #%, #$$,

ire!tor Dstrellita 9eltran-"2elardo (ire!tor "2elardo) of the

:P/-96" issued e!ision o. #$$-#4[5] (96" de!ision), the

dispositive portion of whi!h reads

WHEREFORE, viewed in the li3ht

of all the fore3oin3, this 9ureau finds and soholds that Respondent-"ppli!antEs;ark “NS D-10 PLUS” is !onfusin3l0si;ilar to the /pposerEs ;ark and as su!h,the opposition is

here20 SUSTAINED. ConseFuentl0,trade;ark appli!ation 2earin3 +erial o. 4-#$$4-$$45$ for the ;ark “NS D-10PLUS” filed on &anuar0 1, #$$4 20 orv0". "2[0ada]n3 !overin3 the 3oods fun3i!ideunder Class 5 of the :nternationalClassif i!ation of 3oods is, as it ishere20, REJECTED.

6et the filewrapper of the

trade;ark su2Ge!t ;atterunder !onsideration 2e forwarded to the"d;inistrative, inan!ial and Hu;anResour!es evelop;ent +ervi!es 9ureau("HR+9) for appropriate a!tion ina!!ordan!e with this /rder with a !op0 to

2e furnished the 9ureau of Trade;ark(9/T) for infor;ation and to update itsre!ords.

SO ORDERED.[]

"20adan3 filed a ;otion for re!onsideration

and 9erris, in turn, filed its opposition to the ;otion.

/n "u3ust #, #$$, ire!tor "2elardo issued

Resolution o. #$$-$()[@] (96" resolution), den0in3 the

;otion for re!onsideration and disposin3 as follows

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,

the 8otion for Re!onsideration filed 20 theRespondent-"ppli!ant is here20 DENIEDFOR LACK OF ERIT. ConseFuentl0,e!ision o. #$$-#4 dated "pril #%,#$$ STANDS.

6et the filewrapper of the

trade;ark su2Ge!t ;atterunder !onsideration 2e forwarded to the9ureau of Trade;arks for appropriate a!tionin a!!ordan!e with this Resolution.

SO ORDERED.[%]

"33rieved, "20adan3 filed an appeal on "u3ust ##

#$$ with the /ffi!e of the ire!tor *eneral, :ntelle!tua

Propert0 Philippines (:PP*), do!keted as "ppeal o. 14-$-

1'.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn5


2/49

ith the filin3 of the partiesE respe!tive ;e;oranda,

ire!tor *eneral "drian +. Cristo2al, &r. of the :PP*

rendered a de!ision dated &ul0 #$, #$$@,[] rulin3 as follows

herefore, pre;ises !onsidered[,]

the appeal is here20 D:D. "!!ordin3l0,the appealed e!ision of the ire!tor ishere20 ":R8D.

6et a !op0 of this e!ision as wellas the trade;ark appli!ation and re!ords 2efurnished and returned to the ire!tor of9ureau of 6e3al "ffairs for appropriatea!tion. urther, let also the ire!tors of the9ureau of Trade;arks, the "d;inistrative,inan!ial and Hu;an Resour!esevelop;ent +ervi!es 9ureau, and theli2rar0 of the o!u;entation, :nfor;ationand Te!hnolo30 Transfer 9ureau 2efurnished a !op0 of this e!ision forinfor;ation, 3uidan!e, and re!ordspurposes.

+/ /RDRD.[1$]

=ndeterred, "20adan3 filed a petition for

review[11] 2efore the C".

:n its e!ision dated "pril 14, #$$%, the C" reversed

the :PP* de!ision. :t held

:n su;, the petition should 2e

3ranted due to the followin3 reasonsI

1) petitionerEs ;ark is not!onfusin3l0 si;ilar with respondentEstrade;ark J #) respondentfailed to esta2lish its ownership of the ;ark

and ') respondentEstrade;ark re3istration for ;a0 2e !an!elled in the present !ase toavoid ;ultipli!it0 of suits.

WHEREFORE, the petition

is GRANTED. The de!ision dated &ul0 #$,#$$@ of the :P/ ire!tor *eneral in "ppealo. 14-$-1' (:PC o. 14-#$$5-$$$)is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a newone is entered 3ivin3 due !ourse topetitionerEs appli!ation for re3istration of

the ;ark and !an!elin3respondentEs trade;ark re3istration for

SO ORDERED.[1#]

9erris filed a 8otion for Re!onsideration, 2ut in its &une

1%, #$$% Resolution, the C" denied the ;otion for la!k of

;erit. Hen!e, this petition an!hored on the followin3

ar3u;ents

:. The Honora2le Court of"ppealsE findin3 that there exists no!onfusin3 si;ilarit0 2etween PetitionerEsand respondentEs ;arks is 2ased on;isapprehension of fa!ts, sur;ise and!onGe!ture and not in a!!ord with the:ntelle!tual Propert0 Code and appli!a2lee!isions of this Honora2le Court [+upre;eCourt]. ::. The Honora2le Court of"ppealsE e!ision reversin3 and settin3aside the te!hni!al findin3s of the:ntelle!tual Propert0 /ffi!e even without afindin3 or, at the ver0 least, an alle3ation of3rave a2use of dis!retion on the part of saida3en!0 is not in a!!ord with law and earlierpronoun!e;ents of this Honora2le Court[+upre;e Court].

:::. The Honora2le Court of "ppealsEe!ision orderin3 the !an!ellation of hereinPetitionerEs dul0 re3istered and validl0existin3 trade;ark in the a2sen!e of aproperl0 filed Petition for Can!ellation

2efore the :ntelle!tual Propert0 /ffi!e is notin a!!ord with the :ntelle!tual Propert0 Codeand appli!a2le e!isions of this Honora2leCourt [+upre;e Court].[1']

The 2asi! law on trade;ark, infrin3e;ent, and unfai

!o;petition is Repu2li! "!t (R.".) o. %#'[14] (:ntelle!tua

Propert0 Code of thePhilippines), spe!ifi!all0 +e!tions 1#1 to

1@$ thereof. :t took effe!t on &anuar0 1, 1%. Prior to its

effe!tivit0, the appli!a2le law was R.". o. 1,[15] as

a;ended.

:nterestin3l0, R.". o. %#' did not expressl0 repea

in its entiret0 R.". o. 1, 2ut ;erel0 provided in +e!tion

#'.1[1] that "!ts and parts of "!ts in!onsistent with it were

repealed. :n other words, onl0 in the instan!es where a

su2stantial and irre!on!ila2le !onfli!t is found 2etween the

provisions of R.". o. %#' and of R.". o. 1 would the

provisions of the latter 2e dee;ed repealed.

R.". o. %#' defines a as an0 visi2le si3n

!apa2le of distin3uishin3 the 3oods (trade;ark) or servi!es

(servi!e ;ark) of an enterprise and shall in!lude a sta;ped

or ;arked !ontainer of 3oods.[1@] :t also defines a

;ark> as an0 visi2le si3n desi3nated as su!h in the

appli!ation for re3istration and !apa2le of distin3uishin3 the

ori3in or an0 other !o;;on !hara!teristi!, in!ludin3 the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn21


3/49

Fualit0 of 3oods or servi!es of different enterprises whi!h use

the si3n under the !ontrol of the re3istered owner of the

!olle!tive ;ark.[1%]

/n the other hand, R.". o. 1 defines a

as an0 distin!tive word, na;e, s0;2ol, e;2le;,

si3n, or devi!e, or an0 !o;2ination thereof, adopted and used

20 a ;anufa!turer or ;er!hant on his 3oods to identif0 and

distin3uish the; fro; those ;anufa!tured, sold, or dealt 20

another.[1] " trade;ark, 2ein3 a spe!ial propert0, is afforded

prote!tion 20 law. 9ut for one to enGo0 this le3al prote!tion,

le3al prote!tion ownership of the trade;ark should ri3htl0 2e

esta2lished.

The ownership of a trade;ark is a!Fuired 20 its

re3istration and its a!tual use 20 the ;anufa!turer or

distri2utor of the 3oods ;ade availa2le to the pur!hasin3

pu2li!. +e!tion 1##[#$] of R.". o. %#' provides that the

ri3hts in a ;ark shall 2e a!Fuired 20 ;eans of its valid

re3istration with the :P/. " !ertifi!ate of re3istration of a

;ark, on!e issued, !onstitutes prima facie eviden!e of the

validit0 of the re3istration, of the re3istrantEs ownership of the

;ark, and of the re3istrantEs ex!lusive ri3ht to use the sa;e

in !onne!tion with the 3oods or servi!es and those that are

related thereto spe!ified in the !ertifi!ate. [#1] R.". o. %#',

however, reFuires the appli!ant for re3istration or the

re3istrant to file a de!laration of a!tual use ("=) of the

;ark, with eviden!e to that effe!t, within three (') 0ears

fro; the filin3 of the appli!ation for re3istrationJ otherwise,

the appli!ation shall 2e refused or the ;ark shall 2e re;oved

fro; the re3ister.[##] :n other words, the prima

facie presu;ption 2rou3ht a2out 20 the re3istration of a ;ark

;a0 2e !hallen3ed and over!o;e, in an appropriate a!tion,

20 proof of the nullit0 of the re3istration or of non-use of the

;ark, ex!ept when ex!used.[#'] 8oreover, the presu;ption

;a0 likewise 2e defeated 20 eviden!e of prior use 20 another

person, i.e., it will !ontrovert a !lai; of le3al appropriation or

of ownership 2ased on re3istration 20 a su2seFuent

user. This is 2e!ause a trade;ark is a !reation of use and

2elon3s to one who first used it in trade or !o;;er!e.[#4]

The deter;ination of priorit0 of use of a ;ark is a

Fuestion of fa!t. "doption of the ;ark alone does no

suffi!e. /ne ;a0 ;ake advertise;ents, issue !ir!ulars

distri2ute pri!e lists on !ertain 3oods, 2ut these alone will not

inure to the !lai; of ownership of the ;ark until the 3oods

2earin3 the ;ark are sold to the pu2li! in the

;arket. "!!ordin3l0, re!eipts, sales invoi!es, and testi;onies

of witnesses as !usto;ers, or orders of 2u0ers, 2est prove

the a!tual use of a ;ark in trade and !o;;er!e durin3 a

!ertain period of ti;e.[#5]

:n the instant !ase, 2oth parties have su2;itted

proof to support their !lai; of ownership of their respe!tive

trade;arks.

Culled fro; the re!ords, 9erris, as oppositor to

"20adan3Es appli!ation for re3istration of his trade;ark

presented the followin3 eviden!eI (1) its trade;ark

appli!ation dated ove;2er #, #$$#[#] with "ppli!ation o

4-#$$#-$$1$#@#J (#) its :P/ !ertifi!ate of re3istration dated

/!to2er #5, #$$4,[#@] with Re3istration o. 4-#$$#-$1$#@#

and &ul0 %, #$$4 as the date of re3istrationJ (') a photo!op0

of its pa!ka3in3[#%]2earin3 the ;ark J (4) photo!opies of its sales invoi!es and offi!ia

re!eiptsJ[#] and (5) its notaried "= dated "pril #', #$$',

['$] statin3 that the ;ark was first used on &une #$, #$$#, and

indi!atin3 that, as proof of a!tual use, !opies of offi!ia

re!eipts or sales invoi!es of 3oods usin3 the ;ark were

atta!hed as "nnex

/n the other hand, "20adan3Es proofs !onsisted o

the followin3I (1) a photo!op0 of the pa!ka3in3['1] for his

;arketed fun3i!ide 2earin3 ;ark J (#

"20adan3Es "ffidavit dated e2ruar0 14, #$$,['#]

statin3

a;on3 others that the ;ark was his own

!reation derived fro;I K for orv0, his na;eJ + K fo

+oledad, his wifeEs na;eJ K the first letter for e!e;2er

his 2irth ;onthJ 1$ K for /!to2er, the 1$th ;onth of the 0ear

the ;onth of his 2usiness na;e re3istrationJ and P6=+ K to

!onnote superior Fualit0J that when he applied fo

re3istration, there was no2od0 appl0in3 for a ;ark si;ilar to

J that he did not know of the existen!e o

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn36


4/49

9erris or an0 of its produ!tsJ that !ould not have 2een

asso!iated with 9erris 2e!ause the latter never en3a3ed in

an0 !o;;er!ial a!tivit0 to sell fun3i!ide in the

lo!al ;arketJ and that he !ould not have !opied 9errisE ;ark

2e!ause he re3istered his pa!ka3in3 with the ertilier and

Pesti!ide "uthorit0 (P") ahead of 9errisJ (') Certifi!ation

dated e!e;2er 1, #$$5[''] issued 20 the P", statin3 that

is owned and distri2uted 20 + orthern

/r3ani! ertilier, re3istered with the P" sin!e 8a0 #,

#$$', and had 2een in the ;arket sin!e &ul0 '$, #$$'J (4)

Certifi!ation dated /!to2er 11, #$$5['4] issued 20 the P",

statin3 that, per ;onitorin3 a;on3 dealers in Re3ion : and in

the Cordillera "d;inistrative Re3ion re3istered with its offi!e,

the Re3ional /ffi!er neither en!ountered the fun3i!ide with

;ark nor did the P" provin!ial offi!ers fro;

the sa;e area re!eive an0 report as to the presen!e or sale

of 9errisE produ!tJ (5) Certifi!ation dated 8ar!h 14,

#$$['5] issued 20 the P", !ertif0in3 that all pesti!ides ;ust

2e re3istered with the said offi!e pursuant to +e!tion ['] of

Presidential e!ree (P..) o. 1144['@] and +e!tion 1, "rti!le

:: of P" Rules and Re3ulations o. 1, +eries of 1@@J ()

Certifi!ation dated 8ar!h 1, #$$['%] issued 20 the P",

!ertif0in3 that the pesti!ide was re3istered 20

9erris on ove;2er 1#, #$$4J and (@) re!eipts fro; +unrise

ar; +uppl0['] in 6a Trinidad, 9en3uet of the sale of

"20adan3Es 3oods referred to as and

9ased on their proffered pie!es of eviden!e, 2oth

9erris and "20adan3 !lai; to 2e the prior user of their

respe!tive ;arks.

e rule in favor of 9erris.

9erris was a2le to esta2lish that it was usin3 its

;ark sin!e &une #$, #$$#, even 2efore it filed

for its re3istration with the :P/ on ove;2er #, #$$#, as

shown 20 its "= whi!h was under oath and notaried,

2earin3 the sta;p of the 9ureau of Trade;arks of the :P/ on

"pril #5, #$$',[4$] and whi!h stated that it had an atta!h;ent

as "nnex sales invoi!es and offi!ial re!eipts of 3oods

2earin3 the ;ark. :ndeed, the "=, 2ein3 a notaried

do!u;ent, espe!iall0 when re!eived in due !ourse 20 the :P/

is eviden!e of the fa!ts it stated and has the presu;ption o

re3ularit0, entitled to full faith and !redit upon its fa!e. Thus

the 2urden of proof to over!o;e the presu;ption o

authenti!it0 and due exe!ution lies on the part0 !ontestin3 it

and the re2uttin3 eviden!e should 2e !lear, stron3, and

!onvin!in3 as to pre!lude all !ontrovers0 as to the falsit0 o

the !ertifi!ate.[41] hat is ;ore, the "= is 2uttressed 20 the

Certifi!ation dated "pril #1, #$$[4#] issued 20 the 9ureau o

Trade;arks that 9errisE ;ark is still valid and existin3.

Hen!e, we !annot su2s!ri2e to the !ontention o

"20adan3 that 9errisE "= is fraudulent 2ased onl0 on his

assu;ption that 9erris !ould not have le3all0 used the ;ark

in the sale of its 3oods wa0 2a!k in &une #$$# 2e!ause it

re3istered the produ!t with the P" onl0 on ove;2er 1#

#$$4. "s !orre!tl0 held 20 the :PP* in its de!ision on

"20adan3Es appeal, the Fuestion of whether or not 9erris

violated P.. o. 1144, 2e!ause it sold its produ!t without

prior re3istration with the P", is a distin!t and separate

;atter fro; the Gurisdi!tion and !on!ern of the :P/. Thus

even a deter;ination of violation 20 9erris of P.. o. 1144

would not !ontrovert the fa!t that it did su2;it eviden!e that

it had used the ;ark earlier than its P"

re3istration in #$$4.

urther;ore, even the P" Certifi!ation dated

/!to2er 11, #$$5, statin3 that the offi!e had neithe

en!ountered nor re!eived reports a2out the sale of the

fun3i!ide within Re3ion : and the Cordillera

"d;inistrative Re3ion, !ould not ne3ate the fa!t that 9erris

was sellin3 its produ!t usin3 that ;ark in #$$#, espe!iall0

!onsiderin3 that it first traded its 3oods in Calauan, 6a3una

where its 2usiness offi!e is lo!ated, as stated in the "=.

Therefore, 9erris, as prior user and prior re3istrant

is the owner of the ;ark "s su!h, 9erris ha

in its favor the ri3hts !onferred 20 +e!tion 14@ of R.". o

%#', whi!h provides

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/183404.htm#_ftn46


5/49

+e!. 14@. Rights Conferred. [email protected]. The owner of a re3istered

;ark shall have the ex!lusive ri3ht toprevent all third parties not havin3 theownerEs !onsent fro; usin3 in the !ourse oftrade identi!al or si;ilar si3ns or !ontainersfor 3oods or servi!es whi!h are identi!al orsi;ilar to those in respe!t of whi!h thetrade;ark is re3istered where su!h usewould result in a likelihood of !onfusion. :n

!ase of the use of an identi!al si3n foridenti!al 3oods or servi!es, a likelihood of!onfusion shall 2e presu;ed.

14@.#. The ex!lusive ri3ht of the

owner of a well-known ;ark defined in+u2se!tion 1#'.1(e) whi!h is re3istered inthe Philippines, shall extend to 3oods andservi!es whi!h are not si;ilar to those inrespe!t of whi!h the ;ark isre3isteredI Provided , That use of that ;arkin relation to those 3oods or servi!es wouldindi!ate a !onne!tion 2etween those 3oodsor servi!es and the owner of the re3istered;arkI Provided, further, That the interestsof the owner of the re3istered ;ark are

likel0 to 2e da;a3ed 20 su!h use.

ow, we !onfront the Fuestion,


6/49

!onsideration the pa!ka3in3, for 2oth use the sa;e t0pe of

;aterial (foil t0pe) and have identi!al !olor s!he;es (red,

3reen, and white)J and the ;arks are 2oth predo;inantl0

red in !olor, with the sa;e phrase


7/49

/n /!to2er #1, #$$, petitioner er;aline, :n!.

(er;aline) filed 2efore the :ntelle!tual Propert0 /ffi!e (:P/)

an appli!ation for re3istration of the trade;ark ("ppli!ation o. 4-#$$$115'). The

appli!ation was pu2lished for /pposition in the :P/ D-*aette

on 8ar!h , #$$@.

/n 8a0 %, #$$@, respondent 80ra Phar;a!euti!als,

:n!. (80ra) filed a Aerified /pposition[4] alle3in3 that the

trade;ark sou3ht to 2e re3istered 20 er;aline so rese;2les

its trade;ark re3istered with the :P/ wa0 2a!k &ul0 %, 1%,

renewed for ten (1$) 0ears on &ul0 %, #$$. 80ra has 2een

extensivel0 usin3 whi!h is pra!ti!all0 identi!al with its own

!onsisted of four (4) letters while on &une ', #$$' and was alread0

refused re3istration 20 the :P/. 90 filin3 this new appli!ation

for re3istration, er;aline appears to have en3a3ed in a

fishin3 expedition for the approval of its ;ark. 80raar3ued

that its intelle!tual propert0 ri3ht over its trade;ark is

prote!ted under +e!tion 14@[] of R.". o. %#'.

80ra asserted that the ;ark is aurall0 si;ilar to its own ;ark su!h that the

re3istration and use of er;alineEs applied ;ark will ena2le i

to o2tain 2enefit fro; 80raEs reputation, 3oodwill and

advertisin3 and will lead the pu2li! into 2elievin3 tha

er;aline is, in an0 wa0, !onne!ted to 80ra. 80ra added

that even if the su2Ge!t appli!ation was under Classifi!ation

44[@] for various skin treat;ents, it !ould still 2e !onne!ted to

the vis-O-vis80raEs


8/49

opposition pursuant to +e!tion 1#'.1(d) of R.". o. %#'. :t

disposed

HDRD/RD, the Aerified

/pposition is, as it is, here20+=+T":D. ConseFuentl0, "ppli!ation+erial o. 4-#$$-$115' for the ;ark

MDR8"6:D, DR8"6:D, :C. +t0liedord;arkE for er;aline, :n!. under !lass

44 !overin3 the afore;entioned 3oods filedon #1 /!to2er #$$, is as it is here20,RD&DCTD.

6et the file wrapper of MDR8"6:D,DR8"6:D, :C. +t0lied ord;arkEsu2Ge!t ;atter of this !ase 2e forwarded tothe 9ureau of Trade;arks (9/T) forappropriate a!tion in a!!ordan!e with thise!ision.

+/ /RDRD.[1#]

"33rieved, er;aline filed a ;otion for

re!onsideration, 2ut it was denied under Resolution o. #$$-

1#()[1'] dated &anuar0 1, #$$.

Dxpe!tedl0, er;aline appealed to the /ffi!e of the

ire!tor *eneral of the :P/. However, in an /rder[14] dated

"pril 1@, #$$, the appeal was dis;issed for 2ein3 filed out of

ti;e.

=ndaunted, er;aline appealed to the C", 2ut it

affir;ed and upheld the /rder dated "pril 1@, #$$ and the

reGe!tion of er;alineEs appli!ation for re3istration of

trade;ark. The C" likewise denied er;alineEs ;otion for

re!onsiderationJ hen!e, this petition raisin3 the issue of

whether the C" erred in upholdin3 the :P/Es reGe!tion of

er;alineEs appli!ation for re3istration of trade;ark.

The petition is without ;erit.

" trade;ark is an0 distin!tive word, na;e, s0;2ol,

e;2le;, si3n, or devi!e, or an0 !o;2ination thereof, adopted

and used 20 a ;anufa!turer or ;er!hant on his 3oods to

identif0 and distin3uish the; fro; those ;anufa!tured, sold,

or dealt 20 others.[15] :nar3ua2l0, it is an intelle!tual propert0

deservin3 prote!tion 20 law. :n trade;ark !ontroversies,

ea!h !ase ;ust 2e s!rutinied a!!ordin3 to its pe!uliar

!ir!u;stan!es, su!h that Gurisprudential pre!edents should

onl0 2e ;ade to appl0 if the0 are spe!ifi!all0 in point.[1]

"s 80ra !orre!tl0 posits, as a re3istered trade;ark

owner, it has the ri3ht under +e!tion 14@ of R.". o. %#' to

prevent third parties fro; usin3 a trade;ark, or si;ilar si3ns

or !ontainers for 3oods or servi!es, without its !onsent

identi!al or si;ilar to its re3istered trade;ark, where su!h

use would result in a likelihood of !onfusion.

:n deter;inin3 likelihood of !onfusion, !ase law has

developed two (#) tests, the o;inan!0 Test and the Holisti!

or Totalit0 Test.

The o;inan!0 Test fo!uses on the si;ilarit0 of the

prevalent features of the !o;petin3 trade;arks that ;i3ht

!ause !onfusion or de!eption.[1@] :t is applied when the

trade;ark sou3ht to 2e re3istered !ontains the ;ain

essential and do;inant features of the earlier re3istered

trade;ark, and !onfusion or de!eption is likel0 to

result. upli!ation or i;itation is not even reFuiredJ neithe

is it ne!essar0 that the la2el of the applied ;ark fo

re3istration should su33est an effort to i;itate. The

i;portant issue is whether the use of the ;arks involved

would likel0 !ause !onfusion or ;istake in the ;ind of or

de!eive the ordinar0 pur!haser, or one who is a!!usto;ed to

2u0, and therefore to so;e extent fa;iliar with, the 3oods in

Fuestion.[1%] *iven 3reater !onsideration are the aural and

visual i;pressions !reated 20 the ;arks in the pu2li! ;ind

3ivin3 little wei3ht to fa!tors like pri!es, Fualit0, sales outlets

and ;arket se3;ents.[1] The test of do;inan!0 is now

expli!itl0 in!orporated into law in +e!tion 155.1 of R.". o

%#' whi!h provides

155.1. =se in !o;;er!e an0

reprodu!tion, !ounterfeit, !op0,or !"#"$%' ()(*%*("+ of a re3istered;ark or the sa;e !ontainer or a ")(+%+*'%*$' thereof in !onne!tion with the sale,offerin3 for sale, distri2ution, advertisin3 ofan0 3oods or servi!es in!ludin3 otherpreparator0 steps ne!essar0 to !arr0 outthe sale of an0 3oods or servi!es on or in!onne!tion with whi!h su!h use is likel0 to!ause !onfusion, or to !ause ;istake, or tode!eiveJ (emphasis supplied )

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn19


9/49

/n the other hand, the Holisti! Test entails a

!onsideration of the entiret0 of the ;arks as applied to the

produ!ts, in!ludin3 la2els and pa!ka3in3, in deter;inin3

!onfusin3 si;ilarit0. The s!rutiniin3 e0e of the o2server

;ust fo!us not onl0 on the predo;inant words 2ut also on

the other features appearin3 in 2oth la2els so that a

!on!lusion ;a0 2e drawn as to whether one is !onfusin3l0

si;ilar to the other.[#$]

Relative to the Fuestion on !onfusion of ;arks and

trade na;es, Gurispruden!e has noted two (#) t0pes of

!onfusion, viz I (1) !onfusion of 3oods (produ!t !onfusion),

where the ordinaril0 prudent pur!haser would 2e indu!ed to

pur!hase one produ!t in the 2elief that he was pur!hasin3 the

otherJ and (#) !onfusion of 2usiness (sour!e or ori3in

!onfusion), where, althou3h the 3oods of the parties are

different, the produ!t, the ;ark of whi!h re3istration is

applied for 20 one part0, is su!h as ;i3ht reasona2l0 2e

assu;ed to ori3inate with the re3istrant of an earlier produ!t,

and the pu2li! would then 2e de!eived either into that 2elief

or into the 2elief that there is so;e !onne!tion 2etween the

two parties, thou3h inexistent.[#1]

:n reGe!tin3 the appli!ation of er;aline for the

re3istration of its ;ark the

:P/ applied the o;inan!0 Test. :t de!lared that 2oth

!onfusion of 3oods and servi!e and !onfusion of 2usiness or

of ori3in were apparent in 2oth trade;arks. :t also noted

that, per 9ureau e!ision o. #$$@-1@ dated e!e;2er 4,

#$$@, it alread0 sustained the opposition of 80ra involvin3

the trade;ark


10/49

;arket. The Court is !o3niant that the re3istered trade;ark

owner enGo0s prote!tion in produ!t and ;arket areas that are

the normal potential expansion of his business. Thus, we

have held K

8odern law re!o3nies that the

prote!tion to whi!h the owner of atrade;ark is entitled is not li;ited to3uardin3 his 3oods or 2usinessfro; actual ;arket !o;petition withidenti!al or si;ilar produ!ts of the parties,2ut extends to all !ases in whi!h the use 20a Gunior appropriator of a trade-;ark ortrade-na;e is #(/'# *" #'% *" %!"+("+ " "$!', % 23'$'4$"4'!*(5' 4$!3%'$ 2"# &')(#' (+*" *3(+/(+6 *3%* *3'!")4#%(+(+6 4%$* 3% '7*'+' 3(&(+' (+*" *3' ('# (see 14% "6R 5 etseFJ 5' "; &ur. 5@) or is in any wa0!onne!ted with the a!tivities of theinfrin3erJ "$ 23'+ (* "$'*%## *3'+"$)%# 4"*'+*(%# '74%+("+ " 3(

&(+' (v. 14% "6R @@, %4J 5# ";. &ur.5@, 5@@).[#'] (D;phasis supplied)

Thus, the pu2li! ;a0 ;istakenl0 think that er;aline

is !onne!ted to or asso!iated with 80ra, su!h that,

!onsiderin3 the !urrent proliferation of health and 2eaut0

produ!ts in the ;arket, the pur!hasers would likel0 2e ;isled

that 80ra has alread0 expanded its 2usiness throu3h

er;aline fro; ;erel0 !arr0in3 phar;a!euti!al topi!al

appli!ations for the skin to health and 2eaut0 servi!es.

Aeril0, when one applies for the re3istration of a

trade;ark or la2el whi!h is al;ost the sa;e or that ver0

!losel0 rese;2les one alread0 used and re3istered 20

another, the appli!ation should 2e reGe!ted and dis;issed

outri3ht, even without an0 opposition on the part of the

owner and user of a previousl0 re3istered la2el or

trade;ark. This is intended not onl0 to avoid !onfusion on

the part of the pu2li!, 2ut also to prote!t an alread0 used and

re3istered trade;ark and an esta2lished 3oodwill.[#4]

9esides, the issue on prote!tion of intelle!tual

propert0, su!h as trade;arks, is fa!tual in nature. The

findin3s of the :P/, upheld on appeal 20 the sa;e offi!e, and

further sustained 20 the C", 2ear 3reat wei3ht and deserves

respe!t fro; this Court. 8oreover, the de!ision of the :P/

had alread0 attained finalit0 when er;aline failed to ti;el0

file its appeal with the :P/ /ffi!e of the ire!tor *eneral.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The e!ision

dated "u3ust @, #$$ and the Resolution dated /!to2er #%

#$$ of the Court of "ppeals in C"-*.R. +P o. 1$%#@

are AFFIRED. Costs a3ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

:R+T :A:+:/

E.Y. INDUSTRIAL SALES, INC. G.R. N". 18980%+ ENGRACIO YAP, Petitioners,

SHEN DAR ELECTRICITY AND Pro;ul3atedIACHINERY CO., LTD., Respondent. /!to2er #$, #$1$x------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.:

T3' C%'

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45seeks to nullif0 and reverse the e2ruar0 #1, #$$%

e!ision[1] and the /!to2er , #$$% Resolution [#] rendered 20

the Court of "ppeals (C") in C"-*.R. +P o. '5

entitled Shen Dar lectricity and !achinery Co., "td. v. .#

$ndustrial Sales, $nc. and ngracio #ap.

The assailed de!ision reversed the e!ision dated 8a0

#5, #$$@['] issued 20 the ire!tor *eneral of the :ntelle!tua

Propert0 /ffi!e (:P/) in $nter Partes Case o. 14-#$$4

$$$%4. The :P/ ire!tor *eneral upheld Certifi!ate o

Re3istration (C/R) o. 4-1-$$5'' issued 20 the :P/ fo

the trade;ark issued in favo

of respondent +hen ar Dle!tri!it0 and 8a!hiner0 Co., 6td

(+hen ar). The e!ision of the :P/ ire!tor *eneral, in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/190065.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn3


11/49

effe!t, affir;ed the e!ision dated 8a0 #, #$$[4] issued 20

the ire!tor of the 9ureau of 6e3al "ffairs (96") of the :P/.

T3' F%!*

D:+ is a do;esti! !orporation en3a3ed in the

produ!tion, distri2ution and sale of air !o;pressors and other

industrial tools and eFuip;ent.[5] Petitioner Dn3ra!io ap is

the Chair;an of the 9oard of ire!tors of D:+.[]

Respondent +hen ar is a Taiwan-2ased forei3n

!orporation en3a3ed in the ;anufa!ture of air !o;pressors.[@]

9oth !o;panies !lai;ed to have the ri3ht to re3ister

the trade;ark whi!h it i;ported fro; +hen ar. +hen ar also

ar3ued that it had prior and ex!lusive ri3ht to the use and

re3istration of the ;ark 8oreover, D:+ ar3ued that +hen

ar, not 2ein3 the owner of the ;ark, !ould not seek

prote!tion fro; the provisions of the Paris Convention or the

:P Code.[1]

Thereafter, the ire!tor of the 96" issued its

e!ision dated 8a0 #, #$$ in favor of D:+ and a3ains

+hen ar, the dispositive portion of whi!h readsI

HDRD/RD, pre;ises !onsidered,

the Petition for Can!ellation is, as it ishere20, D:D. ConseFuentl0, Certifi!ateof Re3istration o. 4-1-[$$5''] for the;ark


12/49

1. hether the 96" ire!tor erred in rulin3

that +hen ar failed to present eviden!eJ

#. hether the re3istration of D:+E

appli!ation was proper !onsiderin3 that

+hen ar was the first to file an appli!ation

for the ;arkJ and

'. hether the 96" ire!tor !orre!tl0 ruled

that D:+ is the true owner of the ;ark.[1%]

6ater, the :P/ ire!tor *eneral issued a e!ision

dated 8a0 #5, #$$@ upholdin3 the C/R issued in favor of

D:+ while !an!ellin3 the C/R of +hen ar, the dispositive

portion of whi!h readsI

HDRD/RD, pre;ises !onsidered,the appeal is D:D. Certifi!ate ofRe3istration o. 4-1-$$5'' for the;ark AD+P" for air !o;pressor issued infavor of "ppellee is here20 upheld.ConseFuentl0, Certifi!ate of Re3istration o.4-1@-1#14# for the ;ark AD+P",Chinese Chara!ters Q evi!e for 3oods air!o;pressor and spot weldin3 ;a!hineissued in favor of "ppellant is here20ordered !an!elled.

6et a !op0 of this e!ision as well

as the re!ords of this !ase 2e furnished andreturned to the ire!tor of 9ureau of 6e3al"ffairs for appropriate a!tion. urther, let

also the ire!tors of the 9ureau ofTrade;arks, the "d;inistrative, inan!ialand Hu;an Resour!es evelop;ent+ervi!es 9ureau, and the o!u;entation,:nfor;ation and Te!hnolo30 Transfer9ureau 2e furnished a !op0 of this e!isionfor infor;ation, 3uidan!e, and re!ordspurposes.[1]

+hen ar appealed the a2ove de!ision of the :P/

ire!tor *eneral to the C" where +hen ar raised the

followin3 issuesI

1. hether +hen ar is 3uilt0 of foru; shoppin3J

#. hether the first-to-file rule applies to the

instant !aseJ

'. hether +hen ar presented eviden!e of a!tual

useJ

4. hether D:+ is the true owner of the ;ark

as

;a0 2e 3leaned fro; its re!eipts whi!h indi!ated that D:+ is

an i;porter, wholesaler and retailer, and therefore, !annot 2e

!onsidered an owner of the ;ark.[##]

D:+ filed a ;otion for re!onsideration of the

assailed de!ision whi!h the C" denied in the assailed

resolution.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn22


13/49

Hen!e, the instant appeal.

I'

D:+ and ap raise the followin3 issues in their

petitionI

". hether the ire!tor *eneral

of the :P/ !orre!tl0 upheld theri3hts of Petitioners over thetrade;ark AD+P".

9. hether the ire!tor *eneralof the :P/ !an, under the!ir!u;stan!es, order the!an!ellation of RespondentEs!ertifi!ate of re3istration forAD+P", whi!h has 2eenfraudulentl0 o2tained anderroneousl0 issued.

C. hether the Honora2le Court

of "ppeals was Gustified inreversin3 the findin3s of fa!t of the:P/, whi!h affir; the ri3hts ofPetitioner D:+ over the trade;arkAD+P" and when su!h findin3s aresupported 20 the eviden!e onre!ord.

. hether this Honora2le Court

;a0 review Fuestions of fa!t!onsiderin3 that the findin3s of theCourt of "ppeals and the :P/ are in!onfli!t and the !on!lusions of theappellee !ourt are !ontradi!ted 20the eviden!e on re!ord.[#']

T3' R#(+6 " *3' C"$*

The appeal is ;eritorious.

F($* I':W3'*3'$ *3( C"$* )% $'5('2 *3' ;'*("+ " %!*

4$''+*'

Petitioners raise the fa!tual issue of who the true

owner of the ;ark is. "s a 3eneral rule, this Court is not a

trier of fa!ts. However, su!h rule is su2Ge!t to ex!eptions.

:n %e& City 'uilders, $nc. v. %ational "abor Relations

Commission,[#4] the Court ruled thatI

e are ver0 ;u!h aware that the

rule to the effe!t that this Court is not atrier of fa!ts ad;its of ex!eptions. "s we

have stated in $nsular "ife (ssuranceCompany, "td. vs. C(I

[i]t is a settled rule that in theexer!ise of the +upre;e CourtEspower of review, the Court is not atrier of fa!ts and does not nor;all0undertake the re-exa;ination ofthe eviden!e presented 20 the!ontendin3 parties durin3 the trialof the !ase !onsiderin3 that the

findin3s of fa!ts of the C" are!on!lusive and 2indin3 on theCourt. However, the Court hadre!o3nied several ex!eptions tothis rule, to witI (1) when thefindin3s are 3rounded entirel0 onspe!ulation, sur;ises or!onGe!turesJ (#) when theinferen!e ;ade is ;anifestl0;istaken, a2surd or i;possi2leJ(') when there is 3rave a2use ofdis!retionJ (4) when the Gud3;entis 2ased on a ;isapprehension offa!tsJ (5) when the findin3s offa!ts are !onfli!tin3J () when in;akin3 its findin3s the Court of

"ppeals went 2e0ond the issues ofthe !ase, or its findin3s are!ontrar0 to the ad;issions of 2oththe appellant and the appelleeJ23'+ *3' (+(+6 %$' !"+*$%$

*" *3' *$(%# !"$*J (%) when thefindin3s are !on!lusions without!itation of spe!ifi! eviden!e onwhi!h the0 are 2asedJ () whenthe fa!ts set forth in the petition aswell as in the petitionerEs ;ain andrepl0 2riefs are not disputed 20 therespondentJ (1$) when the findin3sof fa!t are pre;ised on thesupposed a2sen!e of eviden!e and!ontradi!ted 20 the eviden!e on

re!ordJ and (11) when the Court of"ppeals ;anifestl0 overlooked!ertain relevant fa!ts not disputed20 the parties, whi!h, if properl0!onsidered, would Gustif0 adifferent !on!lusion. (D;phasissupplied.)

:n the instant !ase, the re!ords will show that the

:P/ and the C" ;ade differin3 !on!lusions on the issue o

ownership 2ased on the eviden!e presented 20 the

parties. Hen!e, this issue ;a0 2e the su2Ge!t of this CourtEs

review.

S'!"+ I':

W3'*3'$ '5('+!' 4$''+*' &'"$' *3' BLA )* &'"$)%## "'$'

Preli;inaril0, it ;ust 2e noted that the 96" ruled

that +hen ar failed to addu!e eviden!e in support of its

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn24


14/49

alle3ations as reFuired under /ffi!e /rder o. @, +eries of

#$$5, ";end;ents to the Re3ulations on $nter

Partes Pro!eedin3s, havin3 failed to for;all0 offer its eviden!e

durin3 the pro!eedin3s 2efore it. The 96" ruledI

"t the outset, we note petitionerEs

failure to addu!e an0 eviden!e in support ofits alle3ations in the Petition forCan!ellation. Petitioner did not file norsu2;it its ;arked eviden!e as reFuired inthis 9ureauEs /rder o. #$$-15@ dated #5&anuar0 #$$ in !o;plian!e with /ffi!e/rder o. @, +eries of #$$5, ";end;entsto the Re3ulations on $nterPartes Pro!eedin3s.[#5] x x x

:n reversin3 su!h findin3, the C" !ited +e!. #.4 of

96" 8e;orandu; Cir!ular o. $', +eries of #$$5, whi!h

statesI

+e!tion #.4. :n all !ases, failure tofile the do!u;entar0 eviden!es ina!!ordan!e with +e!tions @ and % of therules on su;;ar0 pro!eedin3s shall 2e!onstrued as a waiver on the part of theparties. :n su!h a !ase, the ori3inal petition,opposition, answer and the supportin3do!u;ents therein shall !onstitute theentire eviden!e for the parties su2Ge!t toappli!a2le rules.

The C" !on!luded that +hen ar needed not for;all0

offer its eviden!e 2ut ;erel0 needed to atta!h its eviden!e to

its position paper with the proper ;arkin3s, [#] whi!h it did in

this !ase.

The :P Code provides under its +e!. 1$.' that the

ire!tor *eneral of the :P/ shall esta2lish the pro!edure for

the appli!ation for the re3istration of a trade;ark, as well as

the opposition to itI

+e!tion 1$. The 9ureau of 6e3al

"ffairs.The 9ureau of 6e3al "ffairs shallhave the followin3 fun!tionsI

x x x x 1$.'. The ire!tor *eneral ;a0 20

Re3ulations esta2lish the pro!edure to3overn the i;ple;entation of this +e!tion.

Thus, the ire!tor *eneral issued /ffi!e /rder o

@, +eries of #$$5 a;endin3 the re3ulations on $nter

Partes Pro!eedin3s, +e!. 1#.1 of whi!h providesI

+e!tion 1#. vidence for the Parties)

1#.1. The verified petition oropposition, repl0 if an0, dul0 ;arked

affidavits of the witnesses, and thedo!u;ents su2;itted, shall !onstitute theentire eviden!e for the petitioner oropposer. The verified answer, reGoinder ifan0, and the dul0 ;arked affidavits anddo!u;ents su2;itted shall !onstitute theeviden!e for the respondent. "ffidavits,do!u;ents and other eviden!e notsu2;itted and dul0 ;arked in a!!ordan!ewith the pre!edin3 se!tions shall not 2ead;itted as eviden!e.

The pre!edin3 se!tions referred to in the a2ove

provision refer to +e!s. @.1, %.1 and whi!h, in turn, provideI+e!tion @. *iling of Petition or

+pposition @.1. The petition or opposition,

to3ether with the affidavits of witnesses andori3inals of the do!u;ents and otherreFuire;ents, shall 2e filed with the 9ureau,provided, that in !ase of pu2li! do!u;ents,!ertified !opies shall 2e allowed in lieu ofthe ori3inals. The 9ureau shall !he!k if thepetition or opposition is in due for; asprovided in the Re3ulations parti!ularl0 Rule', +e!tion 'J Rule 4, +e!tion #J Rule 5,+e!tion 'J Rule , +e!tion J Rule @,

+e!tions ' and 5J Rule %, +e!tions ' and 4.or petition for !an!ellation of la0out desi3n(topo3raph0) of inte3rated !ir!uits, Rule ',+e!tion ' applies as to the for; andreFuire;ents. The affidavits, do!u;entsand other eviden!e shall 2e ;arked!onse!utivel0 as 2e3innin3 withthe letter


15/49

:n other words, as lon3 as the petition is verified and

the pie!es of eviden!e !onsistin3 of the affidavits of the

witnesses and the ori3inal of other do!u;entar0 eviden!e are

atta!hed to the petition and properl0 ;arked in a!!ordan!e

with +e!s. @.1 and %.1 a2ove;entioned, these shall 2e

!onsidered as the eviden!e of the petitioner. There is no

reFuire;ent under the a2ove;entioned rules that the

eviden!e of the parties ;ust 2e for;all0 offered to the 96".

:n an0 !ase, as a Fuasi-Gudi!ial a3en!0 and as stated

in Rule #, +e!. 5 of the Re3ulations on $nter

Partes Pro!eedin3s, the 96" is not 2ound 20 te!hni!al rules of

pro!edure. The eviden!e atta!hed to the petition ;a0,

therefore, 2e properl0 !onsidered in the resolution of the

!ase.

T3($ I':W3'*3'$ *3' IPO D($'!*"$ G'+'$%# !%+

5%#(# !%+!'# S3'+ D%$? C'$*((!%*' " R'6(*$%*("+

:n his e!ision, the :P/ ire!tor *eneral stated that,

despite the fa!t that the instant !ase was for the !an!ellation

of the C/R issued in favor of D:+, the interests of Gusti!e

di!tate, and in view of its findin3s, that the C/R of +hen ar

;ust 2e !an!elled. The ire!tor *eneral explainedI

"!!ordin3l0, while the instant !ase

involves a petition to !an!el the re3istrationof the "ppelleeEs trade;ark AD+P", theinterest of Gusti!e reFuires that Certifi!ate ofRe3istration o. 4-1@-1#14# 2e!an!elled. hile the nor;al !ourse ofpro!eedin3s should have 2een the filin3 of apetition for !an!ellation of Certifi!ate ofRe3istration o. 4-1@-1#14#, that would

involve !riti!al fa!ts and issues that havealread0 2een resolved in this !ase. To allowthe "ppli!ant to still ;aintain in theTrade;ark Re3istr0 Certifi!ate ofRe3istration o. 4-1@-1#14# wouldnullif0 the ex!lusive ri3hts of "ppellee asthe true and re3istered owner of the ;arkAD+P" and defeat the purpose of thetrade;ark re3istration s0ste;.[#@]

+hen ar !hallen3es the propriet0 of su!h

!an!ellation on the 3round that there was no petition fo

!an!ellation as reFuired under +e!. 151 of R" %#'.

/ffi!e /rder o. @, +eries of #$$5, provides unde

its +e!. 5 thatI

+e!tion 5. Rules of Procedure to befollo&ed in the conduct of hearing of $nterPartes cases.The rules of pro!edure herein!ontained pri;aril0 appl0 in the !ondu!t ofhearin3 of :nter Partes !ases. The Rules ofCourt ;a0 2e applied suppletoril0. T3'B$'% 3%## +"* &' &"+ & *$(!**'!3+(!%# $#' " 4$"!'$' %+

'5('+!' &* )% %"4*, (+ *3' %&'+!'" %+ %44#(!%' $#' 3'$'(+, !3)"' " 4$"!''(+6 23(!3 (!"+(*'+* 2(*3 *3' $';($')'+* " %($4#% %+ !"+!(5' *" *3' @*, 4''%+ (+'74'+(5' (4"(*("+ " !%',

%+ 23(!3 2(## 6(5' *3' B$'% *3'6$'%*'* 4"(&(#(* *" "! "+ *3'!"+*'+*(" (' &'"$' (*. (D;phasissupplied.)

The a2ove rule refle!ts the oft-repeated le3a

prin!iple that Fuasi-Gudi!ial and ad;inistrative 2odies are no

2ound 20 te!hni!al rules of pro!edure. +u!h prin!iple

however, is te;pered 20 funda;ental evidentiar0 rules

in!ludin3 due pro!ess. Thus, we ruled in (yaay, Sr. v

(rpaphil Shipping Corp.I[#%]

That ad;inistrative Fuasi-Gudi!ial

2odies like the 6RC are not 2ound 20te!hni!al rules of pro!edure in theadGudi!ation of !ases does not ;ean thatthe 2asi! rules on provin3 alle3ations should2e entirel0 dispensed with. " part0 alle3in3a !riti!al fa!t ;ust still support hisalle3ation with su2stantial eviden!e. "n0de!ision 2ased on unsu2stantiatedalle3ation !annot stand as it will offend duepro!ess.

x x x The li2eralit0 of pro!edure inad;inistrative a!tions is su2Ge!t toli;itations i;posed 20 2asi! reFuire;entsof due pro!ess. "s this Court said in "n3Ti2a0 v. C:R, the provision for flexi2ilit0 inad;inistrative pro!edure 8ore spe!ifi!all0, as held in =i!hi!ov. 6RCI

:t is true that ad;inistrative

and Fuasi-Gudi!ial 2odies like the6RC are not 2ound 20 thete!hni!al rules of pro!edure in the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn28


16/49

adGudi!ation of !ases. However,this pro!edural rule should not 2e!onstrued as a li!ense to disre3ard!ertain funda;ental evidentiar0rules.

This was later reiterated in "epanto Consolidated

!ining Company v. DumapisI[#]

hile it is true that ad;inistrative

or Fuasi-Gudi!ial 2odies like the 6RC arenot 2ound 20 the te!hni!al rules ofpro!edure in the adGudi!ation of !ases, thispro!edural rule should not 2e !onstrued asa li!ense to disre3ard !ertain funda;entalevidentiar0 rules. The eviden!e presented;ust at least have a ;odi!u; ofad;issi2ilit0 for it to have pro2ative value.ot onl0 ;ust there 2e so;e eviden!e tosupport a findin3 or !on!lusion, 2ut theeviden!e ;ust 2e su2stantial. +u2stantialeviden!e is ;ore than a ;ere s!intilla. :t;eans su!h relevant eviden!e as a

reasona2le ;ind ;i3ht a!!ept as adeFuateto support a !on!lusion. Thus, even thou3hte!hni!al rules of eviden!e are not stri!tl0!o;plied with 2efore the 6" and the 6RC,their de!ision ;ust 2e 2ased on eviden!ethat ;ust, at the ver0 least, 2e su2stantial.

The fa!t that no petition for !an!ellation was filed

a3ainst the C/R issued to +hen ar does not pre!lude the

!an!ellation of +hen arEs C/R. :t ;ust 2e e;phasied that,

durin3 the hearin3 for the !an!ellation of D:+E C/R 2efore

the 96", +hen ar tried to esta2lish that it, not D:+, was the

true owner of the ;ark


17/49

() when the findin3s of fa!t are!on!lusions without !itation of the spe!ifi!eviden!e on whi!h the0 are 2asedJ and

(1$) when the findin3s of fa!t of

the Court of "ppeals are pre;ised on thea2sen!e of eviden!e 2ut su!h findin3s are!ontradi!ted 20 the eviden!e onre!ord. (D;phasis supplied.)

Thereafter, in -illaflor v. Court of (ppeals,['1] this

Court applied the a2ove prin!iple to fa!tual findin3s of Fuasi-

Gudi!ial 2odies, to witI

Pro!eedin3 20 analo30, the

ex!eptions to the rule on !on!lusiveness offa!tual findin3s of the Court of "ppeals,enu;erated in uentes vs. Court of"ppeals , !%+ %#" &' %44#(' *" *3"' ";%(-@(!(%# &"(' x x x. (D;phasissupplied.)

Here, the C" identified !ertain ;aterial fa!ts that

were alle3edl0 overlooked 20 the 96" and the :P/ ire!tor

*eneral whi!h it opined, when !orre!tl0 appre!iated, would

alter the result of the !ase. "n exa;ination of the :P/

e!isions, however, would show that no su!h eviden!e was

overlooked.

irst, as to the date of first use of the ;ark 20 the

parties, the C" statedI To 2e3in with, when respondents-

appellees filed its appli!ation for re3istrationof the AD+P" trade;ark on &ul0 #%, 1,the0 stated under oath, as found in theirDC6"R"T:/ / "CT="6 =+D, that theirfirst use of the ;ark was on e!e;2er ##,1%. /n the other hand, [+hen ar] in itsappli!ation dated &une $, 1@ stated,likewise under oath in their DC6"R"T:// "CT="6 =+D, that its first use of the;ark was in &une 1. This !annot 2e;ade an0 !learer. [+hen ar] was not onl0the first to file an appli!ation for re3istration2ut likewise first to use said re3istra2le

;ark.

['#]

Dvidentl0, the C" an!hors its findin3 that +hen ar

was the first to use the ;ark on the state;ents of the parties

in their respe!tive e!larations of "!tual =se. +u!h

!on!lusion is pre;ature at 2est. hile a e!laration of "!tual

=se is a notaried do!u;ent, hen!e, a pu2li! do!u;ent, it is

not !on!lusive as to the fa!t of first use of a ;ark. The

de!laration ;ust 2e a!!o;panied 20 proof of a!tual use as o

the date !lai;ed. :n a de!laration of a!tual use, the appli!an

;ust, therefore, present eviden!e of su!h a!tual use.

The 96" ruled on the sa;e issue, as followsI

8ore i;portantl0, the privaterespondentEs prior adoption and !ontinuoususe of the ;ark MAD+P"E on air !o;pressorsis 2olstered 20 nu;erous do!u;entar0eviden!e !onsistin3 of sales invoi!es issuedin the na;e of D.. :ndustrial and 9ill of6adin3 (Dxhi2its M4E to M'@5E). +ales :nvoi!eo. 1#$@5 dated 8ar!h #@, 15 antedatespetitionerEs date of first use on &anuar0 1,1@ indi!ated in its trade;ark appli!ationfiled on &une , 1@ as well as the date offirst use in &une of 1 as indi!ated in thee!laration of "!tual =se su2;itted one!e;2er ', #$$1 (Dxhi2it M'%5E). The use20 respondent re3istrant in the !on!ept ofowner is shown 20 !o;;er!ial do!u;ents,

sales invoi!es una;2i3uousl0 des!ri2in3 the3oods as to various lo!ations inthe Philippines, as far as 8indanao and theAisa0as sin!e the earl0 1$Es. e !arefull0inspe!ted the eviden!e !onsistin3 of threehundred sevent0-one ('@1) invoi!es andship;ent do!u;ents whi!h show thatAD+P" air !o;pressors were sold not onl0in 8anila, 2ut to lo!ations su!h as :loiloCit0, Ce2u Cit0, u;a3uete Cit0,Sa;2oan3a Cit0, Ca3a0an de /ro Cit0,avao Cit0, to na;e a few. There is nodou2t that it is throu3h private respondentsEefforts that the ;ark


18/49

/n the !ontrar0, respondent D

:ndustrial was a2le to prove the use of the;ark

letters + followed 20 a nu;2er ins!ri2ed inthe air !o;pressor is onl0 to des!ri2e itst0pe, ;anufa!turer 2usiness na;e and!apa!it0. The AD+P" ;ark is in the sti!kerwhi!h is atta!hed to the air !o;pressors.The rulin3 of the +upre;e Court, in the!ase of =/ Co;;er!ial Dnterprises, :n!.vs. *eneral 8illin3 Corporation et al., isFuite enli3htenin3, thus e FuoteI

[']

This is a non sequitur . :t does not follow. The fa!

that D:+ des!ri2ed itself in its sales invoi!e as an i;porter

wholesaler and retailer does not pre!lude its 2ein3 a

;anufa!turer. +e!. #'@ of the ational :nternal Revenue

Code statesI

+e!tion #'@. $ssuance of Receipts

or Sales or Commercial $nvoices."llpersons su2Ge!t to an internal revenue taxshall, for ea!h sale and transfer of;er!handise or for servi!es rendered valuedat Twent0-five pesos (P#5.$$) or ;ore,issue dul0 re3istered re!eipts or sale or!o;;er!ial invoi!es, prepared at least indupli!ate, 3"2(+6 *3' %*' "*$%+%!*("+, ;%+*(*, +(* !"* %+

'!$(4*("+ " )'$!3%+(' "$ +%*$' "'$5(!': Provided, however, That where there!eipt is issued to !over pa0;ent ;ade asrentals, !o;;issions, !o;pensation or fees,re!eipts or invoi!es shall 2e issued whi!hshall show the na;e, 2usiness st0le, if an0,

and address of the pur!haser, !usto;er or!lient. The ori3inal of ea!h re!eipt or

invoi!e shall 2e issued to the pur!haser,!usto;er or !lient at the ti;e thetransa!tion is effe!ted, who, if en3a3ed in2usiness or in the exer!ise of profession,shall keep and preserve the sa;e in hispla!e of 2usiness for a period of three (')0ears fro; the !lose of the taxa2le 0ear inwhi!h su!h invoi!e or re!eipt was issued,while the dupli!ate shall 2e kept andpreserved 20 the issuer, also in his pla!e of2usiness, for a like period.

The Co;;issioner ;a0, in;eritorious !ases, exe;pt an0 personsu2Ge!t to an internal revenue tax fro;!o;plian!e with the provisions of this+e!tion. (D;phasis supplied.)

Correlativel0, in Revenue 8e;orandu; o. 1-#$$'

dated 8a0 #$, #$$', the 9ureau of :nternal Revenue defined

a +ales :nvoi!e and identified its reFuired infor;ation as

followsI

+ales :nvoi!es (+:)BCash :nvoi!e

(C:) K is written a!!ount of 3oods sold orservi!es rendered and the pri!es !har3edtherefor used in the ordinar0 !ourse of2usiness eviden!in3 sale and transfer ora3ree;ent to sell or transfer of 3oods andservi!es. :t !ontains the sa;e infor;ationfound in the /ffi!ial Re!eipt.

/ffi!ial Re!eipt (/R) K is a re!eipt

issued for the pa0;ent of servi!es renderedor 3oods sold. :t !ontains the followin3infor;ationI

a. 9usiness na;e and addressJ

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/184850.htm#_ftn36


19/49

2. Taxpa0er :dentifi!ationu;2erJ

!. a;e of printer (9:R Per;ito.) with in!lusive serialnu;2er of 2ooklets and dateof issuan!e of re!eipts.

There is no reFuire;ent that a sales invoi!e should

a!!uratel0 state the nature of all the 2usinesses of the

seller. There is no le3al 3round to state that D:+E

in its sales invoi!es that it is an i;porter,

wholesaler and retailer is restri!tive and would pre!lude its

2ein3 a ;anufa!turer.

ro; the a2ove findin3s, there was no Gustifia2le

reason for the C" to disre3ard the fa!tual findin3s of the

:P/. The rulin3s of the :P/ ire!tor *eneral and the 96"

ire!tor were supported 20 !lear and !onvin!in3

eviden!e. The fa!ts !ited 20 the C" and +hen ar do not

Gustif0 a different !on!lusion fro; that of the :P/. Hen!e, the

findin3s of the 96" ire!tor and the :P/ ire!tor *eneral

;ust 2e dee;ed as !on!lusive on the C".

F(*3 I':

W3'*3'$ EYIS ( *3' *$' "2+'$ " *3' )%$/ “VESPA”

:n an0 event, 3iven the len3th of ti;e alread0

invested 20 the parties in the instant !ase, this Court ;ust

write finis to the instant !ontrovers0 20 deter;inin3, on!e

and for all, the true owner of the ;ark


20/49

!"))'$!' "$ &(+' ( % 4$'-$';((*' *" *3' %!;((*("+ " *3' $(63*" "2+'$3(4.

x x x x 90 itself, re3istration is not a ;ode

of a!Fuirin3 ownership. W3'+ *3'%44#(!%+* ( +"* *3' "2+'$ " *3'*$%')%$/ &'(+6 %44#(' "$, 3' 3% +"$(63* *" %44# "$ $'6(*$%*("+ " *3'

%)'. Re3istration ;erel0 !reates a pri;afa!ie presu;ption of the validit0 of there3istration, of the re3istrantEs ownership ofthe trade;ark and of the ex!lusive ri3ht tothe use thereof. +u!h presu;ption, Gust likethe presu;ptive re3ularit0 in theperfor;an!e of offi!ial fun!tions, isre2utta2le and ;ust 3ive wa0 to eviden!eto the !ontrar0.

Here, the in!ontroverti2le truth, as esta2lished 20

the eviden!e su2;itted 20 the parties, is that D:+ is the

prior user of the ;ark. The exhaustive dis!ussion on the

;atter ;ade 20 the 96" suffi!ientl0 addresses the issueI

9ased on the eviden!e,

Respondent D.. :ndustrial is a le3iti;ate!orporation en3a3ed in 2u0in3, i;portin3,sellin3, industrial ;a!hineries and tools,;anufa!turin3, a;on3 others sin!e itsin!orporation in 1%%. (Dxhi2it ). :ndeedprivate respondents have su2;ittedphoto3raphs (Dxhi2it , ) showin3 an asse;2l0 line of its;anufa!turin3 or asse;2l0 pro!ess.

8ore i;portantl0, the privaterespondentEs prior adoption and !ontinuoususe of the ;ark ). The use 20 respondent-re3istrant inthe !on!ept of owner is shown 20

!o;;er!ial do!u;ents, sales invoi!esuna;2i3uousl0 des!ri2in3 the 3oods as

to various lo!ations inthe Philippines, as far as 8indanao and theAisa0as sin!e the earl0 1$Es. e !arefull0inspe!ted the eviden!e !onsistin3 of threehundred sevent0 one ('@1) invoi!es andship;ent do!u;ents whi!h show that

used on air!o;pressors has 3ained 2usiness 3oodwilland reputation in the Philippines for whi!h ithas validl0 a!Fuired trade;ark ri3hts.Respondent D :ndustrialEs ri3ht has 2eenpreserved until the passa3e of R" %#'whi!h entitles it to re3ister the sa;e. x xx['%]

/n the other hand, +hen ar failed to refute the

eviden!e !ited 20 the 96" in its de!ision. 8ore i;portantl0

+hen ar failed to present suffi!ient eviden!e to prove its own

prior use of the ;ark air!o;pressors. e disa3ree. This !on!lusion is 2elied 20 the

eviden!e. e have 3one over ea!h andever0 do!u;ent atta!hed as "nnexes 1-4% whi!h !onsist of 9ill of 6adin3 andPa!kin3 ei3ht 6ist. ot one of thesedo!u;ents referred to a . 8orei;portantl0, the earliest date refle!ted onthe 9ill of 6adin3 was on 8a0 5, 1@.("nnex K air!o;pressors. The do!u;ent onl0 ;entionsair !o;pressors whi!h if 3enuine ;erel02olsters respondent Dn3ra!io apEs!ontention that [+hen ar] approa!hedthe; if it !ould sell the or air !o;pressor. (Dxhi2it


21/49

owner. Hen!e, D:+ is entitled to the re3istration of the ;ark

in its na;e.

WHEREFORE, the petition is here20 GRANTED. The

C"Es e2ruar0 #1, #$$% e!ision and /!to2er , #$$%

Resolution in C"-*.R. +P o.

'5 are here20 REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The e!ision

dated 8a0 #5, #$$@ issued 20 the :P/ ire!tor *eneral

in $nter Partes Case o. 14-#$$4-$$$%4 and the e!ision

dated 8a0 #, #$$ of the 96" ire!tor of the :P/ are

here20 REINSTATED.

o !osts.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

SOCIETE DES PRODUITSNESTLE, S.A.,

Petitioner,

ARTIN T. DY, JR.,Respondent.

7- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J .:

T3' C%'

This is a petition for review on !ertiorari under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court. The petition !hallen3es the 1

+epte;2er #$$5 e!ision and 4 "pril #$$ Resolution of the

Court of "ppeals in C"-*.R. CA o. #@'$, findin3 respondent

8artin T. 0, &r. (0, &r.) not lia2le for trade;ark

infrin3e;ent. The Court of "ppeals reversed the 1%

+epte;2er 1% e!ision of the Re3ional Trial Court (RTC),

&udi!ial Re3ion @, 9ran!h , Ce2u Cit0, in Civil Case o. CD9-

1'45.

T3' F%!*

Petitioner +o!iete es Produits estle, +.". (estle) is

a forei3n !orporation or3anied under the laws of

+witerland. :t ;anufa!tures food produ!ts and

2evera3es. "s eviden!ed 20 Certifi!ate of Re3istration o. R-

14#1 issued on @ "pril 1 20 the then 9ureau of Patents,

Trade;arks and Te!hnolo30 Transfer, estle owns the and to undertake that he

would stop infrin3in3 the


22/49

:n its 1% +epte;2er 1% e!ision, the trial !ourt

found 0, &r. lia2le for infrin3e;ent. The trial !ourt heldI

:f deter;ination of infrin3e;ent

shall onl0 2e li;ited on whether or not the;ark used would likel0 !ause !onfusion or;istake in the ;inds of the 2u0in3 pu2li! orde!eive !usto;ers, su!h in [si!] the ;ost!onsidered view of this foru; would2e hi3hl0 unlikel0 to happen in the instant!ase. This is 2e!ause upon !o;parison ofthe plaintiffEs " and defendantEs ",the followin3 features would revealthe a2sen!e of an0 de!eptive tenden!0 indefendantEs "I (1) all " produ!tsare !ontained tin !ans [si!], while "are !ontained in plasti! pa!ksJ (#) thepredo;inant !olors used in the la2els of" produ!ts are 2lue and white, while thepredo;inant !olors in theplasti! pa!kin3s of "are 2lue and 3reenJ (') the la2els of "produ!ts have at the 2otto; portion anellipti!al shaped fi3ure !ontainin3 inside it adrawin3 of nestlin3 2irds, whi!h is

overlapped 20 the trade-na;e ,while the plasti! pa!ks of " have adrawin3 of ;ilkin3 !ows lain3 on a vast3reen field, 2a!k-dropped with snow!overed ;ountainsJ (4) the word " are[si!] all in lar3e, for;al and !onservative-like 2lo!k letters, while the word " are[si!] all in s;all and irre3ular st0le of letterswith !urved endsJ and (5) all " produ!tsare ;ilk for;ulas intended for use of [si!]infants, while " is an instant full !rea;powdered ;ilk intended for use of [si!]adults.

The fore3oin3 has !learl0 shownthat infrin3e;ent in the instant !ase !annot2e proven with the use of the 2e!ause the de!eptive tenden!0of the unre3istered trade;ark " is notapparent fro; the essential features of there3istered trade;ark ".

However, in Dsso +tandard Dastern,:n!. vs. Court of "ppeals, et al. 6-#@1,"u3. '1, 1%#, the +upre;e Court took theo!!asion of dis!ussin3 what is i;plied in thedefinition of when it statedI

urther;ore, in said !ase the+upre;e Court as well dis!ussed on when3oods ;a0 2e!o;e so related for purposesof infrin3e;ent when it statedI

0, &r. appealed the 1% +epte;2er 1% e!ision to

the Court of "ppeals.

T3' C"$* " A44'%#? R#(+6

:n its 1 +epte;2er #$$5 e!ision, the Court of "ppeals

reversed the trial !ourtEs 1% +epte;2er 1% e!ision and

found 0, &r. not lia2le for infrin3e;ent. The Court o

"ppeals heldI

[T]he trial !ourt appeared to have ;ade afindin3 that there is no !olora2le i;itation ofthe re3istered ;ark for his own ;ilk pa!ks. et it didnot stop there. :t !ontinued on appl0in3 the

The +upre;e Court utlilied the in the said !aseof sso Standard aster, $nc. versus Courtof (ppeals, et al. wherein two !ontendin3parties used the sa;e trade;ark for two different 3oods, i.e. petroleu;produ!ts and !i3arettes. :t rules that thereis infrin3e;ent of trade;ark involvin3 two3oods 2earin3 the sa;e ;ark or la2el, evenif the said 3oods are non-!o;petin3, if andonl0 if the0 are so related that the pu2li!;a0 2e, or is a!tuall0, de!eived that the0ori3inate fro; the one ;aker or;anufa!turer. +in!e petroleu; produ!ts


23/49

and !i3arettes, in kind and nature, flowthrou3h different trade !hannels, and sin!ethe possi2ilit0 of !onfusion is unlikel0 in the3eneral appearan!es of ea!h ;ark as awhole, the Court held in this !ase that the0!annot 2e so related in the !ontext ofinfrin3e;ent.

:n appl0in3 the !on!ept of related3oods in the present !ase, the trial !ourthaphaardl0 !on!luded that sin!e plaintiff-

appelleeEs " and defendant-appellantEs" 2elon3 to the sa;e !lass 2ein3 foodprodu!ts, the unre3istered " should 2eheld an infrin3e;ent of estleEs "2e!ause +aid !ourt went on to ela2oratefurtherI and defendant-appellantEs

is !ontained in the word


24/49

+e!tion ## of Repu2li! "!t (R.".) o. 1, as

a;ended, statesI

$nfringement, &hat constitutes.

"n0 person who shall use, without the!onsent of the re3istrant, an0 reprodu!tion,!ounterfeit, !op0 or !olora2le i;itation ofan0 re3istered ;ark or trade-na;e in

!onne!tion with the sale, offerin3 for sale,or advertisin3 of an0 3oods, 2usiness orservi!es on or in !onne!tion with whi!h su!huse is likel0 to !ause !onfusion or ;istakeor to de!eive pur!hasers or others as to thesour!e or ori3in of su!h 3oods or servi!es,or identit0 of su!h 2usinessJ or reprodu!e,!ounterfeit, !op0 or !olora2l0 i;itate an0su!h ;ark or trade-na;e and appl0 su!hreprodu!tion, !ounterfeit, !op0, or !olora2lei;itation to la2els, si3ns, prints, pa!ka3es,wrappers, re!epta!les or advertise;entsintended to 2e used upon or in !onne!tionwith su!h 3oods, 2usiness or servi!es, shall2e lia2le to a !ivil a!tion 20 the re3istrantfor an0 or all of the re;edies hereinprovided.

+e!tion 155 of R.". o. %#' statesI

Remedies0 $nfringement . "n0

person who shall, without the !onsent of theowner of the re3istered ;arkI

155.1. =se in !o;;er!e an0reprodu!tion, !ounterfeit, !op0, or !olora2lei;itation of a re3istered ;ark or the sa;e!ontainer or a do;inant feature thereof in!onne!tion with the sale, offerin3 for sale,

distri2ution, advertisin3 of an0 3oods orservi!es in!ludin3 other preparator0 stepsne!essar0 to !arr0 out the sale of an0 3oodsor servi!es on or in !onne!tion with whi!hsu!h use is likel0 to !ause !onfusion, or to!ause ;istake, or to de!eiveJ or

155.#. Reprodu!e, !ounterfeit,!op0 or !olora2l0 i;itate a re3istered ;arkor a do;inant feature thereof and appl0su!h reprodu!tion, !ounterfeit, !op0 or!olora2le i;itation to la2els, si3ns, prints,pa!ka3es, wrappers, re!epta!les oradvertise;ents intended to 2e used in!o;;er!e upon or in !onne!tion with the

sale, offerin3 for sale, distri2ution, oradvertisin3 of 3oods or servi!es on or in!onne!tion with whi!h su!h use is likel0 to!ause !onfusion, or to !ause ;istake, or tode!eive, shall 2e lia2le in a !ivil a!tion forinfrin3e;ent 20 the re3istrant for there;edies hereinafter set forthI Provided,That the infrin3e;ent takes pla!e at the;o;ent an0 of the a!ts stated in+u2se!tion 155.1 or this su2se!tion are!o;;itted re3ardless of whether there isa!tual sale of 3oods or servi!es usin3 theinfrin3in3 ;aterial.

:n Prosource $nternational, $nc. v. orphag Research

!anagement S(, the Court laid down the ele;ents o

infrin3e;ent under R.". os. 1 and %#'I

:n a!!ordan!e with +e!tion ## of R.".

o. 1, as well as +e!tions #, #-", -",and #$ thereof, the followin3 !onstitute the

ele;ents of trade;ark infrin3e;entI


25/49

VThe trade;ark2ein3 infrin3ed isre3istered in the:ntelle!tual Propert0/ffi!eJ however, ininfrin3e;ent of tradena;e, the sa;e need not2e re3isteredJ

VThe trade;ark

or trade na;e isreprodu!ed, !ounterfeited,!opied,or !olora2l0 i;itated 20the infrin3erJ

VThe infrin3in3;ark or trade na;e isused in !onne!tion withthe sale, offerin3 for sale,or advertisin3 of an03oods, 2usiness orservi!esJ or the infrin3in3;ark or trade na;e isapplied to la2els, si3ns,prints, pa!ka3es,wrappers, re!epta!les oradvertise;ents intendedto 2e used upon or in!onne!tion with su!h3oods, 2usiness orservi!esJ

VThe use orappli!ation of theinfrin3in3 ;ark or tradena;e is likel0 to !ause!onfusion or ;istake or tode!eive pur!hasers or

others as to the 3oods orservi!es the;selves or asto the sour!e or ori3in ofsu!h 3oods or servi!es orthe idenit0 of su!h2usinessJ and

V:t is without the!onsent of the trade;arkor trade na;e owner orthe assi3nee thereof.

";on3 the ele;ents, the ele;ent of likelihood of

!onfusion is the 3rava;en of trade;ark infrin3e;ent. There

are two t0pes of !onfusion in trade;ark infrin3e;entI

!onfusion of 3oods and !onfusion of 2usiness. :n Sterling

Products $nternational, $nc.

v. *arbenfabri1en 'ayer(1tiengesellschaft , the Court

distin3uished the two t0pes of !onfusionI

Call;an notes two t0pes of !onfusion. Thefirst is the confusion of goods :n whi!h !ase, Theother is the confusion of businessI

There are two tests to deter;ine likelihood o

!onfusionI the do;inan!0 test and holisti! test. The

do;inan!0 test fo!uses on the si;ilarit0 of the ;ain

prevalent or essential features of the !o;petin3 trade;arks

that ;i3ht !ause !onfusion. :nfrin3e;ent takes pla!e when

the !o;petin3 trade;ark !ontains the essential features o

another. :;itation or an effort to i;itate is unne!essar0. The

Fuestion is whether the use of the ;arks is likel0 to !ause

!onfusion or de!eive pur!hasers.

The holisti! test !onsiders the entiret0 of the ;arks

in!ludin3 la2els and pa!ka3in3, in deter;inin3 !onfusin3

si;ilarit0. The fo!us is not onl0 on the predo;inant words

2ut also on the other features appearin3 on the la2els.

:n !ases involvin3 trade;ark infrin3e;ent, no set of

rules !an 2e dedu!ed. Da!h !ase ;ust 2e de!ided on its own

;erits. &urisprudential pre!edents ;ust 2e studied in the

li3ht of the fa!ts of ea!h parti!ular !ase. :n !cDonald2s

Corporation v. !ac3oy *astfood Corporation, the Court heldI

:n trade;ark !ases, parti!ularl0 in

as!ertainin3 whether one trade;ark is!onfusin3l0 si;ilar to another, no set rules!an 2e dedu!ed 2e!ause ea!h !ase ;ust 2ede!ided on its ;erits. :n su!h !ases, even;ore than in an0 other liti3ation, pre!edent;ust 2e studied in the li3ht of the fa!ts ofthe parti!ular !ase. That is the reason wh0in trade;ark !ases, Gurisprudentialpre!edents should 2e applied onl0 to a !aseif the0 are spe!ifi!all0 in point.

:n the li3ht of the fa!ts of the present !ase, the Cour

holds that the do;inan!0 test is appli!a2le. :n re!ent !ases

with si;ilar fa!tual ;ilieus, the Court has !onsistentl0 applied

the do;inan!0 test. :n Prosource $nternational, $nc., the

Court applied the do;inan!0 test in holdin3 that


26/49

*D/6+> is !onfusin3l0 si;ilar to The Court

heldI

The trial and appellate !ourts applied

the o;inan!0 Test in deter;inin3 whetherthere was a !onfusin3 si;ilarit0 2etween the;arks PC/*D/6 and PC/-*D/6. "ppl0in3 the test, the trial !ourtfound, and the C" affir;ed, thatI

:n !cDonald2s Corporation

v. !ac3oy *astfood Corporation, the Court applied the

do;inan!0 test in holdin3 that The Court heldI

hile we a3ree with the C"Es detailed

enu;eration of differen!es 2etween the two(#) !o;petin3 trade;arks herein involved,we 2elieve that the holisti! test is not theone appli!a2le in this !ase, the do;inan!0test 2ein3 the one ;ore suita2le. :n re!ent!ases with a si;ilar fa!tual ;ilieu as here,the Court has !onsistentl0 used and appliedthe do;inan!0 test in deter;inin3 !onfusin3si;ilarit0 or likelihood of !onfusion 2etween!o;petin3 trade;arks.


27/49

x x x x

"ppl0in3 the do;inan!0 test to theinstant !ase, the Court finds that hereinpetitionerEs ;arksare are!onfusin3l0 si;ilar with ea!h otherthat an ordinar0 pur!haser !an !on!lude anasso!iation or relation 2etween the ;arks.

To 2e3in with, 2oth ;arks use the!orporate desi3n lo3o and the prefixes

andBor as do;inantfeatures. x x x

or sure, it is the prefix anda22reviation of whi!h visuall0 andaurall0 !at!hes the attention of the!onsu;in3 pu2li!. Aeril0, the word

is !onfusin3l0 si;ilar to

"ppl0in3 the do;inan!0 test, the

Court finds that respondentsE use of the ;ark results in likelihood of!onfusion. irst, sounds exa!tl0the sa;e as +e!ond, the firstword in is exa!tl0 the sa;e asthe first word in Third, the firsttwo letters in are the sa;e as thefirst two letters in ourth, the lastletter while a sounds the sa;e as

when the word ispronoun!ed. ifth, in ilipino, the letter repla!es in spellin3, thus isspelled


28/49

:n Societe Des Produits %estle, S.( v. Court of (ppeals,

the Court applied the do;inan!0 test in holdin3 that is !onfusin3l0 si;ilar to and

The first three letters of hen are pronoun!ed, the aural effe!t is !onfusin3l0

si;ilar.

:n deter;inin3 the issue of !onfusin3 si;ilarit0, the

Court takes into a!!ount the aural effe!t of the letters

!ontained in the ;arks. :n!arvex Commercial Company, $nc

v. Petra a&pia 4 Company , the Court heldI

:t is our !onsidered view that thetrade;arks and , whi!h is used to denote a

plaster that adheres to the 2od0 with!urative powers.


29/49

The followin3 rando; list of!onfusin3l0 si;ilar sounds in the ;atter oftrade;arks, !ulled fro; i;s, =nfairCo;petition and Trade 8arks, 14@, Aol. 1,will reinfor!e our view that and


30/49

!onfusion of sour!e, aswhere prospe!tivepur!hasers would 2e;isled into thinkin3 thatthe !o;plainin3 part0 hasextended his 2usiness intothe field (see 14% "6R5 et sqJ 5' ";. &ur. 5@)or is in an0 wa0 !onne!tedwith the a!tivities of theinfrin3erJ or when it

forestalls the nor;alpotential expansion of his2usiness (v . 14% "6R, @@,%4J 5# ";. &ur. 5@,5@@). (D;phasissupplied)

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. e SET

ASIDE the 1 +epte;2er #$$5 e!ision and 4 "pril #$$

Resolution of the Court of "ppeals in C"-*.R. CA o. #@'$

and REINSTATE the 1% +epte;2er 1% e!ision of the

Re3ional Trial Court, &udi!ial Re3ion @, 9ran!h , Ce2u Cit0, inCivil Case o. CD9-1'45.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

FREDCO ANUFACTURINGCORPORATION,

Petitioner,

- versusPRESIDENT AND FELLOWS

OF HARVARD COLLEGE I

,

Respondents.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

T3' C%'

9efore the Court is a petition for review1 assailin3 the #4

/!to2er #$$% e!ision# and % &anuar0 #$$ Resolution' of the

Court of "ppeals in C"-*.R. +P o. 1$''

T3' A+*'!''+* F%!*

/n 1$ "u3ust #$$5, petitioner red!o 8anufa!turin3

Corporation (red!o), a !orporation or3anied and existin3

under the laws of the Philippines, filed a Petition for

Can!ellation of Re3istration o. 551 2efore the 9ureau of

6e3al "ffairs of the :ntelle!tual Propert0 /ffi!e (:P/) a3ainst

respondents President and ellows of Harvard Colle3e

(Harvard =niversit0), a !orporation or3anied and existin3

under the laws of 8assa!husetts, =nited +tates of ";eri!a.

The !ase was do!keted as :nter Partes Case o. 14-#$$5-

$$$4.

red!o alle3ed that Re3istration o. 551 was issued to

Harvard =niversit0 on #5 ove;2er 1' for the ;ark

for de!als, tote 2a3s, servin3

tra0s, sweatshirts, t-shirts, hats and fl0in3 dis!s under

Classes 1, 1%, #1, #5 and #% of the i!e :nternational

Classifi!ation of *oods and +ervi!es. red!o alle3ed that the

;ark for t-shirts, polo shirts, sandos, 2riefs,

Ga!kets and sla!ks was first used in the Philippines on #

&anuar0 1%# 20 ew ork *ar;ents 8anufa!turin3 Q Dxport

Co., :n!. (ew ork *ar;ents), a do;esti! !orporation and

red!oEs prede!essor-in-interest. /n #4 &anuar0 1%5, ew

ork *ar;ents filed for trade;ark re3istration of the ;ark

for 3oods under Class #5. The appli!ation ;atured

into a re3istration and a Certifi!ate of Re3istration was issued

on 1# e!e;2er 1%%, with a #$-0ear ter; su2Ge!t to

renewal at the end of the ter;. The re3istration was later

assi3ned to Ro;eo Chuate!o, a ;e;2er of the fa;il0 that

owned ew ork *ar;ents.

red!o alle3ed that it was for;ed and re3istered with the

+e!urities and Dx!han3e Co;;ission on ove;2er 15

and had sin!e then handled the ;anufa!ture, pro;otion and

;arketin3 of !lothin3 arti!les. red!o alle3ed that

at the ti;e of issuan!e of Re3istration o. 551 to Harvard

=niversit0, ew ork *ar;ents had alread0 re3istered the

;ark for 3oods under Class #5. red!o alle3ed that

the re3istration was !an!elled on '$ &ul0 1% when ew

ork *ar;ents inadvertentl0 failed to file an affidavit of

useBnon-use on the fifth anniversar0 of the re3istration 2ut

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/185917.html#sdfootnote1symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/185917.html#sdfootnote2symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/185917.html#sdfootnote3symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/185917.html#sdfootnote1symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/185917.html#sdfootnote2symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/185917.html#sdfootnote3sym


31/49

the ri3ht to the ;ark re;ained with its prede!essor

ew ork *ar;ents and now with red!o.

Harvard =niversit0, on the other hand, alle3ed that it is the

lawful owner of the na;e and ;ark in nu;erous

!ountries worldwide, in!ludin3 the Philippines. ";on3 the

!ountries where Harvard =niversit0 has re3istered its na;e

and ;ark areI

1. "r3entina #. +outh orea

#. 9enelux4 #@. 8ala0sia

'. 9rail #%. 8exi!o

4. Canada #. ew Sealand

5. Chile '$. orwa0

. China P.R. '1. Peru

@. Colo;2ia '#. Philippines%. Costa Ri!a ''. Poland

. C0prus '4. Portu3al

1$. Ce!h Repu2li! '5. Russia

11. en;ark '. +outh "fri!a

1#. D!uador '@. +witerland

1'. D30pt '%. +in3apore

14. inland '. +lovak Repu2li!

15. ran!e 4$. +pain

1. *reat 9ritain 41. +weden

1@. *er;an0 4#. Taiwan

1%. *ree!e 4'. Thailand

1. Hon3 on3 44. Turke0

#$. :ndia 45. =nited "ra2 D;irates

#1. :ndonesia 4. =ru3ua0

##. :reland 4@. =nited +tates of";eri!a

#'. :srael 4%. Aeneuela

#4. :tal0 4. Si;2a2we

#5. &apan 5$. Duropean Co;;unit05

The na;e and ;ark was adopted in 1' as the

na;e of Harvard Colle3e of Ca;2rid3e, 8assa!husetts,

=.+.". The na;e and ;ark was alle3edl0 used in

!o;;er!e as earl0 as 1%@#. Harvard =niversit0 is over '5$

0ears old and is a hi3hl0 re3arded institution of hi3her

learnin3 in the =nited +tates and throu3hout the world.

Harvard =niversit0 pro;otes, uses, and advertises its na;e

throu3h various pu2li!ations, servi!es, and

produ!ts in forei3n !ountries, in!ludin3 the Philippines.

Harvard =niversit0 further alle3ed that the na;e and the

;ark have 2een rated as one of the ;ost fa;ous 2rands in

the world, valued 2etween =+ W@5$,$$$,$$$ and =+

W1,$$$,$$$,$$$.

Harvard =niversit0 alle3ed that

Documents

IPL Cases (Full Text)