Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21587. May 19, 1966.]

BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and UNITED AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Respondents.

Picazo & Agcaoili for Petitioner.

Sycip, Salazar, Luna & Associates for respondent United American Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General A. A. Torres and Solicitor A.V. Sempio-Diy, for Director of Patents.


SYLLABUS


1. TRADEMARK; TEST TO DETERMINE CONFUSING SIMILARITY. — In determining whether two trademarks are confusingly similar, the test is not simply to take their words and compare the spelling and pronunciation of said words. Rather, it is to consider the two marks in their entirety, as they appear in the respective labels, in relation to the goods to which they are attached. (Mead Johnson & Co. v. N.V.J. Van Dorp, Ltd., G.R. No. L-17501, April 27, 1963.)

2. ID.; ID.; TRADEMARK HAVING THE SAME SUFFIX AND SIMILAR SOUNDING PREFIXES BUT WITH STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS; CASE AT BAR. — The trademarks in question are not apt to confuse prospective customers. For though the words "BIOFERIN" and "BUFFERIN" have the same suffix and similar-sounding prefixes, they appear in their respective labels with strikingly different backgrounds and surroundings, as to color, size and design. Furthermore, the product covered by "BIOFERIN" is expressly stated as dispensable only upon doctor’s prescription, while that of "BUFFERIN" does not require the same. The chances of being confused into purchasing one for the other are therefore all the more rendered negligible.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


A petition for registration in the Principal Register of the Patent Office of the trademark "BIOFERIN" was filed on October 21, 1957 by United American Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Said domestic corporation first used the afore-stated trademark in the Philippines on August 13, 1957. It covers "a medicinal preparation of antihistaminic, analgesic, antipyretic with vitamin C and Bioflavenoid used in the treatment of common colds, influenza and other febrile diseases with capillary hemorrhagic tendencies." The product falls under Class 6 of the official classification, that is, "Medicines and Pharmaceutical Preparations."

Bristol Myers Co., a corporation of the State of Delaware, U.S.A., filed on January 6, 1959 an opposition to the application. Said oppositor is the owner in the Philippines of the trademark "BUFFERIN" under Certificate of Registration No. 4578 issued by the Philippine Patent Office on March 3, 1954. Its trademark is also registered in the United States under Certificate of Registration No. 566190 issued on November 4, 1952. It was first used in the Philippines on May 13, 1953. The product covered by "BUFFERIN" also belongs to Class 6, Medicines and Pharmaceutical Preparations. Designated as "Antacid analgesic", it is intended for relief in cases of "simple headaches, neuralgia, colds, menstrual pain and minor muscular aches."cralaw virtua1aw library

The thrust of oppositor’s contention was that the registration of the applicant’s trademark "BIOFERIN" would violate its rights and interest in its registered trademark "BUFFERIN" as well as mislead and confuse the public as to the source and origin of the goods covered by the respective marks, in view of the allegedly practically the same spelling, pronunciation and letter type design of the two trademarks covering goods of the same class.

The parties thereafter filed on January 18, 1961 a joint petition stipulating as to the facts and submitting the case upon the issue of whether or not, considering all the factors involved, in both trademarks — as the parties would discuss in their memoranda — there will be such confusing similarity between the two trademarks as will be likely to deceive the purchasing public.

After submission of memoranda, on June 21, 1963 the Director of Patents rendered a decision granting the petition and dismissing the opposition, on the ground that, all factors considered, the trademarks in question are not confusingly similar, so that the damage feared by the oppositor will not result.

From said decision the oppositor appealed to this Court by petition for review filed on July 24, 1963. The sole issue raised thereby is: Are the trademarks "BIOFERIN" and "BUFFERIN", as presented to the public in their respective labels, confusingly similar?

Appellant contends that confusing similarity will obtain because both products are primarily used for the relief of pains such as headaches and colds; and because the words "BIOFERIN and "BUFFERIN" are practically the same in spelling and pronunciation.

In determining whether two trademarks are confusingly similar, the test is not simply to take their words and compare the spelling and pronunciation of said words. Rather, it is consider the two marks in their entirety, as they appear in the respective labels, in relation to the goods to which they are attached. Said rule was enunciated by this Court through Justice Felix Bautista Angelo in Mead Johnson & Co., v. N.V.J. Van Dorp, Ltd., L-17501, April 27, 1963, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is true that between petitioner’s trademark ‘ALACTA’ and respondent’s ‘ALASKA’ there are similarities in spelling, appears and sound for both are composed of six letters of three syllables each and each syllable has the same vowel, but in determining if they are confusingly similar a comparison of said words is not the only determining factor. The two marks in their marks in their entirety as they appear in the respective labels must also be considered in relation to the goods to which they are attached. The discerning eye of the observer must focus not only on the predominant words but also on the other features appearing in both labels in order that he may draw his conclusion whether one is confusingly similar to the other. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Applying this test to the trademarks involved in this case, it is at once evident that the Director of Patents did not err in finding no confusing similarity. For though the words "BIOFERING" and "BUFFERIN" and "Bufferin" have the same suffix and similar-sounding prefixes, they appear in their respective labels with strikingly different backgrounds and surroundings, as to color, size and design.

For convenience we sum up these differences, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Relevant Factors "BIOFERIN" "BUFFERIN"

1. Shape & Size of Rectangular about Rectangular,

Label 3-3/4" 2-1/4" 3-3/4" 1-1/4"

2. Color of Label Predominantly Predominantly

Yellow White

3. Color background Olive-green Blue

of word-mark

4. Over-all Layout At the top center At left side of label —

word-mark "BIOFE- "BUFFERIN" ; with

RIN" ; below it are "Bristol Myers Co.,

contents of medicine, New York, N.Y."cralaw virtua1aw library

arranged horizontally; below it; at right side,

at bottom, center, contents, indications,

"United Pharma dosage are grouped

ceuticals, Inc." together, printed

in olive-green perpendicularly.

background. At left

side — dosage,

printed perpendicularly;

at right side, indications,

also perpendicularly

printed.

5. Forms of Product Capsules — Tablets —

label says: label says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"50 capsules" "36 Tablets"

6. Prescription Label states: No such

"To be dispensed statement

only by or on the

prescription of a

physicians"

Accordingly, taken as they will appear to a prospective customer, the trademarks in question are not apt to confuse. Furthermore, the product of the applicant is expressly stated as dispensable only upon doctor’s prescription, while that of oppositor does not require the same. The chances of being confused into purchasing one for the other are therefore all the more rendered negligible. Although oppositor avers that some drugstores sell "BIOFERIN: without asking for a doctor’s prescription, the same if true would be an irregularity not attributable to the applicant, who has already clearly stated the requirement of a doctor’s prescription upon the face of the label of its product.

Wherefore, the decision of the Director of Patents appealed from is hereby affirmed without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, J.B.L. Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar and Sanchez, 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






May-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.