GR L L 23035; (July 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23035. July 31, 1975.
PHILIPPINE NUT INDUSTRY, INC., petitioner, vs. STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED and TIBURCIO S. EVALLE as Director of Patents, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Nut Industry, Inc. obtained Certificate of Registration No. SR-416 for the trademark “PHILIPPINE PLANTERS CORDIAL PEANUTS” on August 10, 1961, for its product of salted peanuts. Respondent Standard Brands Incorporated, a foreign corporation, is the owner of the trademark “PLANTERS COCKTAIL PEANUTS,” covered by Certificate of Registration No. SR-172 issued on July 28, 1958. Standard Brands alleged its trademark was first used in the Philippines in December 1938.
On May 14, 1962, Standard Brands filed a petition for cancellation of Philippine Nut’s registration, alleging that the latter’s trademark was confusingly similar to its own, likely to deceive the public and cause damage. The parties stipulated that Philippine Nut’s trademark was first used on December 20, 1958. The Director of Patents, after proceedings, rendered a decision ordering the cancellation of Philippine Nut’s certificate of registration, finding a confusing similarity between the marks.
ISSUE
Whether the trademark “PHILIPPINE PLANTERS CORDIAL PEANUTS” is confusingly similar to “PLANTERS COCKTAIL PEANUTS,” constituting infringement and justifying cancellation under the Trademark Law.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Director of Patents. The applicable law is Republic Act No. 166 (Trademark Law), particularly Sections 4(d), 17(c), and 22. The test for infringement is whether the use of the challenged mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deceive purchasers regarding the origin of the goods.
The Court upheld the finding of the Director of Patents that the dominant and distinctive feature of both trademarks is the word “PLANTERS,” displayed in a very similar manner on the labels. The addition of the words “Philippine” and “Cordial” by petitioner does not negate the confusing similarity, as the word “PLANTERS” had acquired a “secondary meaning” specifically identifying Standard Brands’ salted peanuts in the market due to its long and exclusive use since 1938. The overall appearance and general impression created by the labels are deceptively similar.
The Court emphasized that findings of fact by the Director of Patents, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. The evidence, including the stipulations and the visual comparison of the labels, substantially supported the finding of confusing similarity. Since Standard Brands had priority of adoption and use, and there was no abandonment of its mark, Philippine Nut was not entitled to its registration. The registration was correctly cancelled to prevent damage to Standard Brands and to avoid public confusion.