G.R. No. L-23791 November 23, 1966
CHUNG TE, petitioner, vs. NG KIAN GIAB and THE HONORABLE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Chung Te and respondent Ng Kian Giab both filed applications for registration of the trademark “Marca Piña” and its representation for use on undershirts and similar garments. Chung Te filed his application on November 25, 1958, alleging first use since January 8, 1951. Ng Kian Giab filed earlier on July 16, 1957, alleging first use since December 6, 1955. An interference was declared between the two applications. The Director of Patents found that neither party satisfactorily proved their alleged dates of first use. Applying the rule that in such inter partes cases, the date of first use is confined to the filing date of the application, the Director granted Ng Kian Giab’s application as the senior party (earlier filing date) and rejected Chung Te’s. Chung Te moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this appeal. Chung Te argued that the Director erred in not giving weight to his documentary evidence showing use since 1951, in not considering Ng Kian Giab’s admission of first use in 1955, in disregarding Chung Te’s prior abandoned application (No. 5544 filed March 31, 1957), and in declaring Ng Kian Giab the prior user without substantial evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Director of Patents erred in granting Ng Kian Giab’s application for trademark registration based solely on the filing dates, despite evidence presented by Chung Te of earlier use.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Director of Patents. While the Director’s findings of fact are generally conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, the Court found that the Director disregarded substantial evidence presented by Chung Te. Chung Te provided documentary evidence, including business permits, tax receipts, purchase orders for labels and boxes bearing the trademark, membership in a trade association, and sales receipts from customers, all tending to prove use of the trademark as early as February 1952. Testimonial evidence from employees and customers corroborated this. Notably, Chung Te had filed an earlier application (No. 5544) on March 31, 1957, which, though abandoned, served as cogent evidence of use by that date when the Director relied solely on filing dates. In contrast, Ng Kian Giab’s evidence to support an earlier use date (claiming family use since 1946) was primarily testimonial, inconsistent, and insufficient to meet the “clear and convincing evidence” standard required when attempting to amend a sworn statement of first use. His documentary evidence only supported use starting in 1955. Therefore, Chung Te proved prior adoption and use of the trademark. The Court directed the Director of Patents to give due course to Chung Te’s application and reject Ng Kian Giab’s.