GR L 24802; (October, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24802 October 14, 1968
Lim Kiah, petitioner, vs. The Kaynee Company and The Director of Patents, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lim Kiah filed an application with the Philippines Patent Office on April 5, 1957, to register the trademark “KAYNEE” for use on undershirts, polo shirts, T-shirts, pants, sporting wear, and handkerchiefs, claiming first use on January 7, 1957. Respondent The Kaynee Company, a South Carolina corporation, opposed the application, alleging prior use of the same trademark in the Philippines since 1951 on similar goods and that the mark had become popular through extensive advertising. Evidence presented by the oppositor showed that Aguinaldo’s Department Store sold KAYNEE-branded products (knitted shirts, polo shirts, etc.) in the Philippines as early as 1949 or 1950 and advertised them in newspapers since 1953. No distributorship, license, or authorization agreement between The Kaynee Company and Aguinaldo’s was proven. Petitioner testified he adopted “KAYNEE” because it meant “fast” in Chinese, conducted an investigation finding no prior registration, and advertised his products in local publications. The Director of Patents dismissed the opposition, finding The Kaynee Company did not itself use the mark in the Philippines and did not authorize Aguinaldo’s to do so. However, the Director also rejected Lim Kiah’s application ex parte, finding that Aguinaldo’s had previously used the trademark in the Philippines, making it unregistrable by another under Section 4(d) of Republic Act No. 166 , and that Lim Kiah was not the owner of the mark.
ISSUE
Whether the Director of Patents correctly rejected Lim Kiah’s application for registration of the trademark “KAYNEE.”
RULING
Yes, the decision of the Director of Patents is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the factual findings of the Director, supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. The evidence established that the trademark “KAYNEE” was previously used in the Philippines by Aguinaldo’s Department Store and not abandoned, thus barring registration by another under the clear and unequivocal language of Section 4(d) of Republic Act No. 166 . The Court found no need to interpret the law differently, as its plain meaning controls. Petitioner’s claim of adopting the mark based on its Chinese meaning did not overcome the evidence of prior use by another entity in the local market.