Philippine Refining Company v.
Ng Sam, 115 SCRA his already popular "X-7" brand and anyone is likely to
472 be misled as to the source or origin by the close
The petitioner Philippine Refining Co. first used 'Camia' resemblance or identity with the trademark "X-7" of the
as trademark for its products in 1922. In 1949, it caused oppositor.
the registration of the said trademark for its lard, butter, Director of Patents: average purchasers are likely to
cooking oil, detergents, polishing materials and soap associate X-7 laundry soap with X-7 perfume, lipstick
products. In 1960, Ng Sam filed an application for and nail polish or to think that the products have
'Camia' for its ham product (Class 47), alleging its first common origin or sponsorship, opposition is sustained
use in 1959. The petitioner opposed the said application and application of Chua Che is rejected.
but the Patent Office allowed the registration of Ng Sam. Issue: whether or not purchasers of X-7 perfume, lipstick
Issue: Is the product of Ng Sam (Ham) and those of the and nail polish would likely upon seeing X-7 laundry
petitioner so related that the use of the trademark soap, attribute common origin to the products or assume
'Camia' on said goods would result to confusion as to that there existed some kind of trade connection
their origin? between applicant Chua Che and opposer Sy Tuo.
HELD: NO. The businesses of the parties are non- Held: Yes. The circumstance of non-actual use of the
competitive and the products are so unrelated that the mark on granulated soap by appellee, does not detract
use of the same trademark will not give rise to confusion from the fact that he has already a right to such a
nor cause damage to the petitioner. The right to a trademark and should, therefore, be protected.
trademark is a limited one, hence, others may use the - The observation of the Director of Patents to the effect
same mark on unrelated goods if no confusion that "the average purchasers are likely to associate X-7
would arise. laundry soap with X-7 perfume, lipstick and nail polish or
A trademark is designed to identify the user, hence, it to think that the products have common origin or
should be so distinctive and sufficiently original so as to sponsorship," is indeed well taken
enable those who see it to recognize instantly its source - While it is no longer necessary to establish that the
or origin. A trademark must be affirmative and goods of the parties possess the same descriptive
definite, significant and distinctive and capable of properties, as previously required under the Trade Mark
indicating origin. Act of 1905, registration of a trademark should be
'Camia' as a trademark is far from being distinctive, It in refused in cases where there is a likelihood of
itself does not identify the petitioner as the manufacturer confusion, mistake, or deception, even though the
of producer of the goods upon which said mark is used. goods fall into different categories.
If a mark is so commonplace, it is apparent that it can't - The products of appellee are common household items
identify a particular business and he who adopted it first nowadays, in the same manner as laundry soap. The
cannot be injured by any subsequent appropriation or likelihood of purchasers to associate those products to a
imitation by others and the public will not be deceived. common origin is not far-fetched.
Mere classification of the goods cannot serve as the -DOP affirmed.
decisive factor in the resolution of whether or not the
goods a related. Emphasis should be on the similarity of
products involved and not on arbitrary classification of
general description of their properties or characteristics.
Chua Che v. Philippine Patent Office, 13 SCRA 67
(1965)
-October 30, 1958, Chua Che presented with the
Philippines Patent Office a petition praying for the
registration in his favor the trade name "X-7". CHUA
CHE, a citizen of China but a resident of Tondo Phils,
he alleged first used by him in commerce in or with the
Philippines on June 10, 1957.
- In 1959, an Examiner of the Department of Commerce
and Industry, submitted a report recommending the
allowance of the application, which report was approved
by the Supervising TM Examiner. After the Notice of
allowance was published in the OG, as required,
respondent Sy Tuo presented a "Notice of Opposition,"
dated October 15, 1959, alleging that registration of the
trademark "X-7" as applied for by CHUA CHE will not
only violate the rights and interests of the Oppositor over
his registered trademark "X-7" as he has been using it
since 1952. The oppositor has spent a big amount in
expanding his business for the marketing and the
manufacture of toilet soap and crystal laundry soap with
IPL MIDTERMS| A. del Rosario 2020 | 1
