Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions > G.R. No. 5461 February 28, 1910 - PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

015 Phil 345:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 5461. February 28, 1910. ]

PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE QUIOGUE, Defendant-Appellant.

O’Brien & De Witt, for Appellant.

Manuel Torres, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE NAMES; UNFAIR COMPETITION. — Plaintiff conducted an undertaking establishment in the city of Manila known as "La Funeraria Paz" for nine years previous to the entry of the said name in the registry for the protection of trade-marks and trade names; he also maintained two other establishments in the city under the same name. Defendant established a similar business at one of the places formerly occupied by the plaintiff, and carried on the business under the name "La Funeraria Paz," claiming that the plaintiff had no exclusive right to the name under which he had so long conducted his business: Held, that the use by the defendant of the name "La Nueva Funeraria Paz" is an infringement of the plaintiff’s rights amounting to unfair competition, and is properly enjoined.


D E C I S I O N


ARELLANO, C.J. :


Petronilo del Rosario conducted an undertaker’s establishment known as "La Funeraria Paz," on the Calzada de Bilibid, now Nos. 533 and 535 Calle Paz, in the district of Santa Cruz, for nine years previous to the entry of said trade name in the registry on the 14th of January, 1909.

His branch establishment at Calle Alix, in the district of Sampaloc, and Nos. 148 and 150 of Calle Ilaya, in the district of Tondo also bear the same name.

At the present time the main establishment on the Calzada de Bilibid is located upon other premises on the same street, now named Paz, and on the same sidewalk, about 50 meters beyond the old location at Nos. 513 and 515 on the same street.

The old premises, Nos. 533 and 535, together with No. 537, were occupied by Vicente Quiogue, operating a similar undertaker’s establishment, under the name "La Nueva Funeraria Paz," with a sign bearing the said name placed in a most conspicuous spot, which name also he used in his advertisements in the local papers.

The name being almost the same, and the establishment being situated in the same place where "La Funeraria Paz" had been located and known for nine years, these facts have actually deceived those who, intending to send their orders to "La Funeraria Paz" of Petronilo del Rosario, inadvertently employed "La Nueva Funeraria Paz" of Vicente Quiogue, and the said establishment thus succeeded in obtaining benefits which would have gone to the real establishment whose services were sought.

In view of the foregoing, Petronilo del Rosario prayed the Court of First Instance of Manila to issue a preliminary injunction and another final one, prohibiting Vicente Quiogue from using the same name "Funeraria Paz" in his above mentioned establishment, and in addition asked that the latter be adjudged to pay P500 as losses and damages, and the costs.

The court below granted the two injunctions with the costs against the defendant, but dismissed the claim for an indemnity for losses and damages, for the reason that they were not proven; from the said judgment the defendant has appealed and submitted his bill of exceptions to this court.

Upon appeal it now appears that the following error has been assigned:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court below erred in maintaining that the plaintiff had acquired the exclusive right to the use of the word ’Paz’ in his trade name as against any other person on the same street by reason of the long time he had used said word, and by virtue of the recording of the same in the registry of trade-marks and trade-names, it appearing that ’Paz’ is the name of the street where the undertaker’s establishment is located."cralaw virtua1aw library

In support of the above assignment of error, section 2 of Act. No. 666 of the Philippine Commission is especially relied upon, in connection with its proviso, which is of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Provided, That a designation or part of a designation which relates only to the name, quality, or description of the merchandise or geographical place in its production or origin can not be the subject of the trade-mark."cralaw virtua1aw library

In accordance with the above provision, the defendant can not be prevented from using the word "Funeraria," a generic name of the trade, and it was so admitted at the trial; but as to the name "Paz," it does not appear that it is a "geographical name of the place of production or origin of an article," as in the examples rejected in the decisions cited by the appellant, such as "Pennsylvania Wheat," "Kentucky hemp," "Virginia tobacco," "Sea-island cotton," etc.

"Paz" is a name which has been used by the plaintiff to designate his establishment, not necessarily taken from the name of the street on which it is situated at the present time, sine the name of "Paz" was in use when the establishment was located at the Calzada de Bilibid; and while located at the latter place he registered the name and the place became so known in his business papers (Exhibits B and C); the word "Paz" is also applied to his establishment situated on Calle Ilaya in Tondo, and on Calle Alix in Sampaloc, and is still so used.

The following findings of fact are contained in the judgment appealed from: (1) That the words "La Nueva" appear on the sign of the establishment of the defendant, with letters one pan in width, and the words "Funeraria Paz" in letters of more than double the size, and identical with those on the sign of the plaintiff’s establishment; (2) that the defendant opened his establishment in the place that was formerly occupied by the plaintiff; and (3) that the defendant, according to his own desclaration, had fixed lower rates than those charged by the plaintiff for the services of his establishment.

From all of the foregoing conclusions, the trial court concluded that the use of the words "Funeraria Paz" answered no other purpose than that of making it easy to mistake the defendant’s establishment for that of the plaintiff formerly located in the same place, or that it might be considered as its successor; that the addition of "La Nueva" was nothing more than a trick employed by the defendant in order to covertly appropriate the trade name of the plaintiff; that the very fact of adding "La Nueva" to the prominent words "Funeraria Paz" on the sign shows how fully convinced he was that, without such an addition, he could not use the said sign which he now considers as a "generic name of the place of production or origin" referred to in said Act No. 666; that the lowering of rates, together with all the circumstances set forth, tended to establish a competition in bad faith; and that the results are as shown by the defendant in his claim for damages by reason of the preliminary injunction, which prevented him from obtaining such beneficial results.

In this instance the defendant insists that the plaintiff should be adjudged to pay him P2,000, by reason of the said preliminary injunction, without any express assignment of error against the judgment which naturally did not grant him an indemnity for the damages claimed by him.

His claim is stated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It has been shown at the trial by the books of the defendant that, from the 8th to the 24th of January, a period of sixteen days, the collections P380 Philippine currency; and from January 24, to the day when he testified, February 1, the collections only amounted to P39. Said difference is due to the fact that the defendant had extensively advertised his business under the former name, and because of the injunction he was obliged to commence the business under another name, thus losing the benefit of his advertisements." (Brief, 10.)

"Hence, the word ’Paz’ — as concluded in the judgment appealed from — added to the word ’Funeraria’ on the sign of the defendant’s establishment, although preceded by the words ’La Nueva,’ is what attracted clients to the establishment, and not the lower rates charged for services." (B. of E., 14)

In view of the fact that the only error assigned by the appellant has not been proven, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1910 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5155 February 2, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GABRIEL DIAZ

    015 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 5312 February 2, 1910 - ENRIQUE MENDIOLA v. SIMEON A. VILLA

    015 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5160 February 3, 1910 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. RAFAEL MOLINA Y SALVADOR

    015 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 5623 February 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FELICIANO

    015 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 5624 February 3, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO FELICIANO

    015 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. 4150 February 10, 1910 - FELIX DE LOS SANTOS v. AGUSTINA JARRA

    015 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 5025 February 10, 1910 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. CATALINA SOLIS

    015 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 5097 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATE v. PEDRO EDUARDO

    015 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 5188 February 10, 1910 - LINO ALINDOGAN v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    015 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 5197 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GENATO

    015 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 5337 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO SAGUN

    015 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 5390 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIGUEL M.A DE TORO

    015 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 5565 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ALEXANDER McCORMICK

    015 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 5588 February 10, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BUGARIN

    015 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 5412 February 12, 1910 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. RAMON GARCIA

    015 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 5418 February 12, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIO TANEDO

    015 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 3983 February 15, 1910 - SALVADOR OCAMPO v. TOMAS CABAÑGIS

    015 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 4950 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO ALCANTARA

    015 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 5219 February 15, 1910 - JOSE McMICKING v. PEDRO MARTINEZ

    015 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 5566 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS MORO

    015 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 5593 February 15, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX LARIOSA

    015 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 3821 February 16, 1910 - LUCIA PEREZ v. DOMINGO CORTES

    015 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 5193 February 16, 1910 - FERNANDO FERRER v. DOROTEA DIAZ

    015 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 5252 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MALIGALIG

    015 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 5266 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIO ABANTO

    015 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 5516 February 16, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO SAMEA

    015 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4320 February 10, 1910 - FRANCISCA PALET Y DE YEBRA v. ALDECOA & CO.

    015 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 5168 February 19, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES MORALES

    015 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 5496 February 19, 1910 - MERCEDES MARTINEZ Y FERNANDEZ v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    015 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 5161 February 21, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIKE BEECHAM

    015 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 5577 February 21, 1910 - J. W. MEYERS v. WILLIAM THEIN

    015 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 5359 February 23, 1910 - JOSE COJUANGCO v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    015 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 5439 February 23, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO SALAZAR

    015 Phil 315

  • G.R. No. 5162 February 26, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. MIKE BEECHAM

    015 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 5319 February 26, 1910 - UNITED STATES v. SABAS BAOIT

    015 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 5478 February 26, 1910 - SERAFIN BELARMINO v. MIGUEL BAQUIZAL

    015 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. 5461 February 28, 1910 - PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO v. VICENTE QUIOGUE

    015 Phil 345