G.R. No. L-5461
PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE QUIOGUE, defendant-appellant.
February 28, 1910

FACTS:
Petronilo del Rosario operated an undertaker’s establishment called “La Funeraria Paz” for nine years, registering the name on January 14, 1909. His main establishment and branches across different districts all bore this name. Del Rosario’s main establishment moved from its original location at Nos. 533 and 535 Calzada de Bilibid (now Calle Paz) to Nos. 513 and 515 on the same street.

Vicente Quiogue then occupied the old premises of Del Rosario (Nos. 533, 535, and 537) and opened a similar undertaker’s business under the name “La Nueva Funeraria Paz.” Quiogue’s sign prominently displayed “Funeraria Paz” in letters more than double the size of “La Nueva,” identical to Del Rosario’s sign. He also advertised using this name. This situation led to confusion, with customers intending to patronize Del Rosario’s “La Funeraria Paz” inadvertently going to Quiogue’s establishment, thus diverting business.

Del Rosario filed a complaint seeking preliminary and final injunctions to prohibit Quiogue from using the name “Funeraria Paz” and P500 for damages. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the injunctions but dismissed the claim for damages due to lack of proof. Quiogue appealed, arguing that “Paz” is a geographical name (the name of the street) and therefore cannot be exclusively appropriated as a trade name under Section 2 of Act No. 666.

ISSUE:
Whether the word “Paz” in “Funeraria Paz” constitutes a geographical name that cannot be exclusively appropriated as a trade name under Act No. 666, and thus prevent the plaintiff from acquiring an exclusive right to its use.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

The Court held that the word “Paz” is not a “geographical name of the place of production or origin of an article” as contemplated by the proviso in Section 2 of Act No. 666. The examples cited in the law (e.g., “Pennsylvania wheat,” “Kentucky hemp”) refer to a place of production or origin, not merely a street name.

The Court found that Del Rosario had used “Paz” to designate his establishment even when it was located on Calzada de Bilibid (before the street was named Paz) and had registered the name then. Furthermore, he used “Paz” for his branch establishments in Tondo and Sampaloc, which are not located on Calle Paz. This demonstrated that “Paz” was adopted by the plaintiff as a distinctive trade name for his business, not merely as a description of his location.

The Court concluded that Quiogue’s use of “La Nueva Funeraria Paz” in the plaintiff’s former, well-known location, with prominent and identical lettering, was intended to deceive the public and to cause confusion, constituting unfair competition and an appropriation of Del Rosario’s established trade name in bad faith. The addition of “La Nueva” was deemed a “trick” to covertly appropriate the name.

Therefore, the injunctions prohibiting Quiogue from using “Funeraria Paz” were proper. Quiogue’s claim for damages resulting from the injunction was also denied as the injunction was validly issued.