Fruit of the Loom v.
CA - The Supreme Court did not agree that the dominant feature of both
GR # L-32747 | November 29, 1984
(Trademark)
FACTS
- Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Rhode Island, USA) was the registrant of
the trademark FRUIT OF THE LOOM in the Philippines with two
Certificates of Registration: one for men’s, women’s and children’s
underwear (November 1957); and one for knitted, netted and textile
fabrics (July 1958).
- General Garments Corporation (domestic) was the registrant of the
trademark FRUIT FOR EVE with one Certificate of Registration for
women’s panties and pajamas (January 1963).
- According to Fruit of the Loom, Inc., the prominent and dominant
features in both trademarks were the work FRUIT and the big red
apple design in the hang tags.
- Fruit of the Loom, Inc. filed a complaint for infringement of
trademark and unfair competition against General Garments.
- RTC favored Fruit of the Loom but awarded no damages.
- CA reversed.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the two trademarks are confusingly similar as to cause
infringement of FRUIT OF THE LOOM and to justify cancellation of the
FRUIT FOR EVE
RULING & RATIO
1. No.
- There is infringement of trademark when the use of the mark
involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistake in the mind
of the public or to deceive purchasers as to the origin or source of
the commodity.
- A visual presentation of the labels or hang tags is the best
argument for one or the other, hence, the Supreme Court
reproduced in its decision the pictures of the hang tags of the
products.
- In determining whether the trademarks are confusingly similar, a
comparison of the words is not the only determinant factor. The
trademarks in their entirety as they appear in their respective labels
or hang tags 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.
- The lone similar word was FRUIT.
trademarks was the word FRUIT for even in the printing of the
trademark in both hang tags, the word FRUIT was not at all made
dominant over the other words.
- While there were similarities in the two marks like the red apple at
the center of each mark, there were differences or dissimilarities
which were glaring and striking to the eye:
o FRUIT OF THE LOOM – the shape of the hang tag was
round with a base that looked like a paper rolled a few
inches in both ends
o FRUIT FOR EVE – the shape of the hang tag was plain
rectangle without any bas
o FRUIT OF THE LOOM – the trademark was written is
almost semi-circle
o FRUIT FOR EVE – the trademark was written in straight
line in bigger letters
o FRUIT OF THE LOOM –had clusters of grapes
surrounding the apple
o FRUIT FOR EVE – only had an apple in its center
o FRUIT OF THE LOOM –hang tag was light brown; apple
was dark red
o FRUIT FOR EVE – hang tag was pink with a white
centerpiece; apple was light red
- The ordinary purchaser must be thought of as having, and credited
with, at least a modicum of intelligence to be able to see the
obvious differences between the two trademarks.
- A person who bought FRUIT OF THE LOOM and started to have a
liking for it would not get confused and reach out for FRUIT FOR
EVE when she went to a garment store.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, THE DECISION APPEALED FROM IS AFFIRMED. COSTS
AGAINST PETITIONER. SO ORDERED.