Case Digest: Philippine Refining co vs. Ng Sam and Director of Patents

Philippine Refining co vs. Ng Sam and Director of Patents

G.R. No. L-26676 July 30, 1982

FACTS:

The sole issue raised in this petition for review of the decision of the Director of patents is whether or not the product of respondent, Ng Sam, which is ham, and those of petitioner consisting of lard, butter, cooking oil and soap are so related that the use of the same trademark "CAMIA" on said goods would likely result in confusion as to their source or origin.

RULING:

The Court held that the businesses of the parties are non-competitive and their products so unrelated that the identical use of the mark ‘Camia” was not likely to give rise to confusion, much less cause damage to petitioner. The particular goods of the parties are so unrelated that consumers would not in any probability mistake one as the source or origin of the product of the other. Petitioner’s goods are basically derived from vegetable oil and animal fats, while the product of respondent is processed from pig's legs.Furthermore, respondent had on his product the business name "SAM'S HAM AND BACON FACTORY" which would place no question on the origin of the product.

The Court also held that the term subject to the case is not uncommon in view of the fact that there were two others distinct businesses bearing the same name. A trademark must be affirmative and definite, significant and distinctive, capable to indicate origin. It was held that if a mark is so commonplace that it cannot be readily distinguished from others, then he who first adopted it cannot be injured by any subsequent appropriation or imitation by others, and the public will not be deceived. What then is to be reckoned with is the similarity of the products under the mark. The similarity is not on the classification of the property or character of the product but on the sameness of the actual product sold or manufactured. Such similarity is wanting in this case.

Read More

Case Digest: PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. vs. NG SAM and THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

RULING:

G.R. No. L-26676 July 30, 1982

PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. vs. NG SAM and THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

FACTS:

The sole issue raised in this petition for review of the decision of the Director of patents is whether or not the product of respondent, Ng Sam, which is ham, and those of petitioner consisting of lard, butter, cooking oil and soap are so related that the use of the same trademark "CAMIA" on said goods would likely result in confusion as to their source or origin.

RULING:

The mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on articles of a different description. In fine, the Court hold that the business of the parties are non-competitive and their products so unrelated that the use of identical trademarks is not likely to give rise to confusion,much less cause damage to petitioner.

The records of this case disclose that the term "CAMIA" has been registered as a trademark notonly by petitioner but by two (2) other concerns.

The trademark "CAMIA" is used by petitioner on a wide range of products: lard, butter, cooking oil, abrasive detergents, polishing materials and soap of all kinds. Respondent desires to use the same on his product, ham. While ham and some of the products of petitioner are classified under Class 47 (Foods and Ingredients of Food), this alone cannot serve as the decisive factor in the resolution of whether or not they are related goods. Emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and not on the arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics.

The observation and conclusion of the Director of Patents are correct. The particular goods of the parties are so unrelated that consumers would not in any probability mistake one as thesource or origin of the product of the other. "Ham" is not a daily food fare for the average consumer. One purchasing ham would exercise a more cautious inspection of what he buys onaccount of it price. Seldom, if ever, is the purchase of said food product delegated to householdhelps, except perhaps to those who, like the cooks, are expected to know their business.Besides, there can be no likelihood for the consumer of respondent's ham to confuse its sourceas anyone but respondent. The facsimile of the label attached by him on his product, his business name "SAM'S HAM AND BACON FACTORY" written in bold white letters against a reddish orange background, is certain to catch the eye of the class of consumers to which he caters.

In addition, the goods of petitioners are basically derived from vegetable oil and animal fats,while the product of respondent is processed from pig's legs. A consumer would not reasonably assume that, petitioner has so diversified its business as to include the product of respondent.

Read More