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.
