GR 21915; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21915 December 17, 1966
THE GEORGE W. LUFT COMPANY INC., petitioner, vs. NGO GUAN and DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner George W. Luft Co., Inc., a foreign corporation, is the owner of the trademark “Tangee,” which it claims to have used since 1928 and is registered under Certificate of Registration No. 2178-S dated February 21, 1950. The trademark is used for various chemicals, medical, and pharmaceutical preparations, including lipstick, creams, lotions, cosmetics, perfumes, and toilet waters. On January 22, 1959, respondent Ngo Guan applied for the registration of the trademark “Tango,” which he claims to have used since June 1958 for hair pomade. Petitioner opposed the application, alleging that the “Tango” trademark is confusingly similar to its “Tangee” trademark and likely to be mistaken by the public. The Director of Patents overruled the opposition and granted Ngo Guan’s application. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether or not the trademark “Tango” is confusingly similar to the trademark “Tangee” such that it is likely to be mistaken for the latter by the public.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and resolution of the Director of Patents, ruling that the “Tango” trademark is not confusingly similar to “Tangee.” The Court held that petitioner failed to discharge its burden of proof. Key reasons include: (1) Petitioner did not introduce any evidence as to the physical appearance of its “Tangee” trademark, making a comparison with “Tango” impossible and suggesting a lack of visual similarity; (2) The word “Tango” has a well-established meaning, referring to a particular dance, and respondent’s label includes a picture of a man and a woman dancing; and (3) The trademarks are used on different products—petitioner’s “Tangee” is for chemicals, medical, and pharmaceutical preparations (cosmetics, etc.), while respondent’s “Tango” is solely for hair pomade, with no claim that respondent uses or intends to use his mark on petitioner’s type of articles. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.