GR L 32747; (November, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32747 November 29, 1984
FRUIT OF THE LOOM, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GENERAL GARMENTS CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Fruit of the Loom, Inc., a U.S. corporation, is the registrant of the trademark “FRUIT OF THE LOOM” in the Philippines, with certificates covering underwear and textile fabrics. Private respondent General Garments Corporation, a domestic corporation, is the registrant of the trademark “FRUIT FOR EVE,” covering similar garments like women’s panties. Petitioner filed a complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition before the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that respondent’s trademark and its hang tag featuring a big red apple were confusingly similar to its own. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the cancellation of the “FRUIT FOR EVE” registration, a permanent injunction against its use, and an award of attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the complaint. It held that the word “FRUIT” is generic and not capable of exclusive appropriation, and that there was no confusing similarity between the two trademarks. Petitioner now seeks a review, arguing that the appellate court erred in these findings and in not addressing the issue of fraudulent registration and damages.
ISSUE
Whether the trademark “FRUIT FOR EVE” and its hang tag are confusingly similar to “FRUIT OF THE LOOM” and its hang tag, constituting trademark infringement.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that there was no infringement. The legal test for infringement is whether the use of the mark would likely cause confusion or deceive purchasers as to the origin of the goods. Applying this test, the Court found no confusing similarity between the two marks.
The Court held that when pronounced, “FRUIT OF THE LOOM” is wholly different from “FRUIT FOR EVE.” It disagreed with the petitioner’s claim that the word “FRUIT” was the dominant feature, noting it was not emphasized over other words in the hang tags. While both hang tags featured a red apple, the Court identified glaring dissimilarities in their overall design: the shapes were different (round with a base versus plain rectangle), the textual arrangements differed (semi-circle versus straight line), and the color schemes were distinct (light brown with dark red apple versus pink with light red apple). The clusters of grapes on petitioner’s tag were absent from respondent’s. The ordinary purchaser, credited with at least a modicum of intelligence, would be impressed more by these differences than by the similarities and would not be confused. Consequently, the foundational issue of infringement being absent, the Court deemed the ancillary issues of fraudulent registration and damages immaterial.