CASE LIST FOR WEDNESDAY (7-3-19) :
* Co Tiong Sa v. Director of Patents, GR L-5378,
24 May 1954, En Banc, Labrador [J]
 Co toing Sa (Freedom) appeal for
registration of its mark since it was
denied/ director of patents sided with
Saw woo chiong and co (freeman)./ court
rule that feedom was imitate from
freeman
* Etepha AG v. Director of Patents, GR L-20635,
31 March 1966, En Banc, Sanchez [J]
 Westmont pharma sought to register atussin/
was objected by Ethepa A.G stating that
atussin is similar to patussin./May trademark
ATUSSIN be registered, given the fact that
PERTUSSIN had been previously registered in
the Patent Office? Court held: No, The two
labels are entirely different in colors,
contents, arrangement of words thereon,
sizes, shapes and general appearance. The
contrasts in pictorial effects and appeals to
the eye is so pronounced that the label of one
cannot be mistaken for that of the other, not
even by persons unfamiliar with the two
trademarks.
* Gabriel v. Perez, GR L-24075, 31 January 1974,
First Division, Makasiar [J]
 Crisanta Y. Gabriel filed with the Patent Office
a petition for cancellation of the trademark
"WONDER/ Respondent Dr. Jose R. Perez, in
due time, duly filed his answer denying each
and every ground for cancellation/HELD:
denied, based on the contractual agreement
between crista and dr perez, she merely
distribute the product but the contract does
not state that the trademark would be
transferable to her.
* Esso Standard Eastern Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, GR L-29971, 31 August 1982, First
Division, Teehankee [J]
 Petitioner Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., :
engaged in the sale of petroleum products
which are Identified with its trademark
ESSO / respondent UNITED CIGARETTE
CORPORATION domestic corporation then
engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes the predecessor of La Oriental
Tobacco Corporation rights thus acquired
having been the use of the trademark ESSO on
its cigarettes/ petitioner commenced a case
for trademark infringement in the Court of
First Instance of Manila/ rtc rule in favor
of petitioner / CA dismissed the case /
certiorari was file to SC / Held: No, the
goods are obviously different from each other
with "absolutely no iota of similitude" as
stressed in respondent court's judgment.
They are so foreign to each other as to make it
unlikely that purchasers would think that
petitioner is the manufacturer of
respondent's goods.
 Concept of related goods: Goods are
related when they belong to the same class
or have the same descriptive properties;
when they possess the same physical
attributes or essential characteristics with
reference to their form, composition,
texture or quality. They may also be
related because they serve the same
purpose or are sold in grocery stores.
* Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals, GR
L-78325, 25 January 1990, First Division, Cruz
[J]
Del Monte Corporation is a foreign company
granted Philpack the right to manufacture,
distribute and sell in the Philippines various
agricultural products, including catsup, under the
Del Monte trademark and logo and register its
trademark in ph. / Respondent Sunshine Sauce
Manufacturing Industries was issued a Certificate
of Registration to engage in the manufacture,
packing, distribution and sale of various kinds of
sauce, identified by the logo Sunshine Fruit
Catsup/ Having received reports that the private
respondent was using its exclusively designed
bottles and a logo confusingly similar to Del
Monte's, Philpack warned it to desist from doing
so on pain of legal action. Thereafter, claiming
that the demand had been ignored, Philpack and
Del Monte filed a complaint against the private
respondent/ Held: SC does not agree on the conclusion
that there was no infringement or unfair
competition. It seems to us that the lower courts
have been so pre-occupied with the details that
they have not seen the total picture. A number of
courts have held that to determine whether a
trademark has been infringed, we must consider the
mark as a whole and not as dissected. Sunshine
label is a colorable imitation of the Del Monte
trademark. The predominant colors used in the
Del Monte label are green and red-orange, the
same with Sunshine. The word "catsup" in both
bottles is printed in white and the style of the
print/letter is the same. Although the logo of
Sunshine is not a tomato, the figure nevertheless
approximates that of a tomato.
* Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, GR 100098, 29 December
1995, First Division, Kapunan [J]
 172276, 8 August 2010, Second Division, Carpio
* Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, GR 114508, 19
November 1999, First Division, Puno [J]
* Amigo Manufacturing Inc. v. Cluett Peabody
Co. Inc., GR 139300, 14 March 2001, Third
Division, Panganiban [J]
* Shangri-La International Hotel Management
Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, GR 111580, 21 June
2001, First Division, Ynares-Santiago [J]
* Solid Triangle Sales Corporation v. Sheriff of
RTC QC, Branch 93, GR 144309, 23 November
2001, First Division, Kapunan [J]
* Mighty Corporation v. E&J Gallo Winery, GR
154342, 14 July 2004, Third Division, Corona [J]
* McDonald's Corporation v. LC Big Mak Burger
Inc., GR 143993, 18 August 2004, First Division,
Carpio [J
* Sasot v. People, GR 143193, 29 June 2005,
Second Division, Austria-Martinez [J]
* Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. v. Vogue Traders
Clothing Company, GR 132993, 29 June 2005,
First Division, Azcuna [J]
* Levi Strauss & Co. v. Clinton Apparelle Inc., GR
138900, 20 September 2005, Second Division,
Tinga [J]
* Shangri-La International Hotel Management
Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies Inc., GR
159938, 31 March 2006, Second Division, Garcia
[J]
* Philip Morris Inc. v. Fortune Tobacco
Corporation, GR 158589, 27 June 2006, Second
Division, Garcia [J]
* Mattel Inc. v. Francisco, GR 166886, 30 July
2008, Third Division, Austria-Martinez [J]
* Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc. v. Gomez, GR
154491, 14 November 2008, Second Division,
Brion [J]
* Levi Strauss (Phils.) Inc. v. Lim, GR 162311, 4
December 2008, Third Division, Reyes RT [J]
* Espiritu v. Petron Corporation, GR 170891, 24
November 2009, Second Division, Abad [J]
* Prosource International Inc. v. Horphag
Research Management SA, GR 180073, 25
November 2009, Third Division, Nachura [J]
* Batistis v. People, GR 181571, 16 December
2009, First Division, Bersamin [J]
* Superior Commercial Enterprises Inc. v.
Kunnan Enterprises Ltd., GR 169974, 20 April
2010, Second Division, Brion [J]
* Societe des Produits Nestle SA v. Dy, GR
[J]
* Dermaline Inc. v. Myra Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
GR 190065, 16 August 2010, Second Division,
Nachura [J]
* EY Industrial Sales Inc. v. Shen Dar Electricity
and Machinery Co. Ltd., GR 184850, 20 October
2010, First Division, Velasco Jr. [J]
* Fredco Manufacturing Corporation v. President
and Fellows of Harvard College, GR 185917, 1
June 2011, Second Division [J]
* Ong v. People, GR 169440, 23 November 2011,
First Division, Leonardo-De Castro [J]
* Diaz v. People, GR 180677, 18 February 2013,
First Division, Bersamin [J]
* Ecole de Cuisine Manille v. Renaud Cointreau
& Cie, GR 185830, 5 June 2013, Second Division,
Perlas-Bernabe [J]
* Republic Gas Corporation v. Petron
Corporation, GR 194062, 17 June 2013, Third
Division, Peralta [J]
* Birkenstock Orthopaedie GMBH and Co. KG v.
Philippine Shoe Expo Marketing Corporation, GR
194307, 20 November 2013, Second Division,
Perlas-Bernabe [J]
* Shang Properties Realty Corporation v. St.
Francis Development Corporation, GR 190706,
21 July 2014, Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe
[J]
* Willaware Products Corporation v. Jesichris
Manufacturing Corporation, GR 195549, 3
September 2014, Third Division, Peralta [J]
* Taiwan Kolin Corporation Ltd. v . Kolin
Electronics Co. Inc., GR 209843, 25 March 2015,
Third Division, Velasco Jr. [J]
* UFC Philippines Inc. v. Barrio Fiesta
Manufacturing Corporation, GR 198889, 20
January 2016, First Division, Leonardo-De
Castro [J]
* Intellectual Property Association of the
Philippines v. Ochoa, GR 204605, 19 July 2016,
En Banc, Bersamin [J]
* Dy v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, GR
186088, 22 March 2017, First Division, Sereno
[CJ]
* Seri Somboonsakdikul v. Orlane SA, GR
188996, 1 February 2017, Third Division,
Jardaleza [J]
* Mang Inasal Philippines Inc. v. IFP
Manufacturing Corporation, GR 221717, 19 June
2017, Third Division, Velasco Jr. [J]
* Citigroup Inc. v. Citystate Savings Bank Inc.,
GR 205409, 13 June 2018, Third Division,
Leonen [J]
* ABS-CBN Publishing Inc. v. Director of the
Bureau of Trademarks, GR 217916, 20 June
2018, Second Division, Reyes Jr. [J]