Scribd
Upload
42 views2 pages

Ang Vteodoro

Toribio Teodoro has used the trademark "Ang Tibay" since 1910 for shoes, slippers, and other goods. Ana Ang registered the same trademark in 1932 for pants and shirts. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Ana Ang, finding the goods were different and non-competing. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding pants and shirts are closely similar to shoes and could cause confusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting trademarks can be considered the same class if simultaneous use would likely cause confusion, even if the goods are classified separately.

Uploaded by

Jake Castañeda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views2 pages

Ang Vteodoro

Toribio Teodoro has used the trademark "Ang Tibay" since 1910 for shoes, slippers, and other goods. Ana Ang registered the same trademark in 1932 for pants and shirts. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Ana Ang, finding the goods were different and non-competing. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding pants and shirts are closely similar to shoes and could cause confusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting trademarks can be considered the same class if simultaneous use would likely cause confusion, even if the goods are classified separately.

Uploaded by

Jake Castañeda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ANA L.

ANG
vs.
TORIBIO TEODORO,

.G.R. No. L-48226

December 14, 1942

Facts:

Respondent Toribio Teodoro has continuously used "Ang Tibay," both as a


trade-mark and as a trade-name, in the manufacture and sale of slippers,
shoes, and indoor baseballs since 1910. On September 29, 1915, he
formally registered it as trade-mark and as trade-name on January 3, 1933.

Petitioner Ana Ang registered the same trade-mark "Ang Tibay" for pants
and shirts on April 11, 1932, and established a factory for the manufacture
of said articles in the year 1937.

The Court of First Instance of Manila absolved the defendant (Ms. Ang) on
the grounds that the two trademarks are dissimilar and are used on
different and non-competing goods; that there had been no exclusive use
of the trade-mark by the plaintiff; and that there had been no fraud in the
use of the said trade-mark by the defendant because the goods on which it
is used are essentially different from those of the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeals reversed said judgment, directing the Director of


Commerce to cancel the registration of the trade-mark "Ang Tibay" in favor
of petitioner, and perpetually enjoining the latter from using said trade-mark
on goods manufactured and sold by her.

Thus, this case, a petition for certiorari.

Issue:
Are the goods or articles or which the two trademarks are used similar or belong to the same
class of merchandise? 

Ruling:

Yes, pants and shirts are goods closely similar to shoes and slippers. They belong to the same
class of merchandise as shoes and slippers. They are closely related goods.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and added that “although two
non-competing articles may be classified under to different classes by the Patent Office
because they are deemed not to possess the same descriptive properties, they would,
nevertheless, be held by the courts to belong to the same class if the simultaneous use on them
of identical or closely similar trademarks would be likely to cause confusion as to the origin, or
personal source, of the second user’s goods. They would be considered as not falling under the
same class only if they are so dissimilar or so foreign to each other as to make it unlikely that
the purchaser would think that the first user made the second user’s goods”. 

You might also like