TRADEMARK CASE 0001: 10 JAN 1953-G.R. NO. L-4531- ANG SI HENG AND SALUSTIANA DEE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,  VS. WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., BENJAMIN CHUA, S.R. MENDINUETO, AND FELIMON COSIO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES (LABRADOR, J.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PLAINTIFFS REGISTERED FIRST THE THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” FOR MANUFACTURING SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR FOR MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN. LATER, DEFENDANTS REGISTERED THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” FOR THEIR BUSINESS. PLAINTIFFS ARGUE THAT  THE USE OF THE WORDS “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” AS A BUSINESS NAME AND AS A CORPORATE NAME BY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE DECEIVES THE PUBLIC INTO BUYING DEFENDANT CORPORATION’S GOODS UNDER THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THE NAMES ARE THE PLAINTIFF’S OR HAVE THE SAME SOURCE AS PLAINTIFFS’ GOODS, THEREBY RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THEM. ON THE OTHER HAND DEFENDANTS ARGUE THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE ONLY MANUFACTURING SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR WHILE THEY ARE SELLING HATS, SHOES,  TOYS, PERFUMES, BAGS WHICH ARE NOT MANUFACTURED OR SOLD BY PLAINTIFFS AND WHILE THEY ALSO SELL  APPARELS THESE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY PLAINTIFFS. THE SUPREME COURT RULED  IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS AND DECLARED THERE WAS  NO INFRINGEMENT.

 

IS THERE A SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” AND “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE”?

 

YES.

 

IS THERE CONFUSION OR DECEPTION?

 

NO, BECAUSE “WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE” IS A DEPARTMENT STORE WHILE THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON” IS NOT A DEPARTMENT STORE.

 

FURTHERMORE, THE NAME “WELLINGTON” IS ADMITTEDLY THE NAME OF THE TRADEMARK ON THE SHIRTS, PANTS, DRAWERS, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF WEAR FOR MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, WHEREAS THE NAME USED BY THE DEFENDANT INDICATES NOT THESE MANUFACTURED ARTICLES OR ANY SIMILAR MERCHANDISE, BUT A DEPARTMENT STORE.

 

CAN THE PUBLIC BE SAID TO BE DECEIVED INTO THE BELIEF THAT THE GOODS BEING SOLD IN DEFENDANT’S STORE ORIGINATE FROM THE PLAINTIFFS?

 

NO  BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT DEFENDANT’S STORE SELLS NO SHIRTS OR WEAR BEARING THE TRADEMARK “WELLINGTON,” BUT OTHER TRADEMARKS.

 

FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT CUSTOMERS OF THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MISLED INTO PURCHASING DEFENDANT’S ARTICLES AND MERCHANDISE.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

 

TRADEMARK-0001-ANG SI HENG ET AL VS WELLINGTON DEPARTMENT STORE INC ET AL.doc 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.