Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Hickok Manufacturing Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wDganZ
    The petitioner Hickok Manufacturing Co. sought to cancel the trademark registration of respondent Lim Bun Liong for using the name "Hickok" for his Marikina shoes. The Director of Patent initially granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trademarks were different in design, coloring, and words on ribbons. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that while trademarks need not be identical, they must be considered in their entirety in relation to the goods. Emphasis is on similarity of products, not classification. The Court found the products were unrelated and non-competing, as petitioner's goods were men's accessories manufactured in the Philippines but labeled as foreign, while respondent's shoes were clearly labeled "Made in Marik

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hickok Manufacturing Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wDganZ
    29 views2 pages
    The petitioner Hickok Manufacturing Co. sought to cancel the trademark registration of respondent Lim Bun Liong for using the name "Hickok" for his Marikina shoes. The Director of Patent initially granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trademarks were different in design, coloring, and words on ribbons. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that while trademarks need not be identical, they must be considered in their entirety in relation to the goods. Emphasis is on similarity of products, not classification. The Court found the products were unrelated and non-competing, as petitioner's goods were men's accessories manufactured in the Philippines but labeled as foreign, while respondent's shoes were clearly labeled "Made in Marik

    Original Description:

    hk

    Original Title

    Hickok Manufacturing vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Hickok Manufacturing Co. sought to cancel the trademark registration of respondent Lim Bun Liong for using the name "Hickok" for his Marikina shoes. The Director of Patent initially granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trademarks were different in design, coloring, and words on ribbons. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that while trademarks need not be identical, they must be considered in their entirety in relation to the goods. Emphasis is on similarity of products, not classification. The Court found the products were unrelated and non-competing, as petitioner's goods were men's accessories manufactured in the Philippines but labeled as foreign, while respondent's shoes were clearly labeled "Made in Marik

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    Hickok Manufacturing Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wDganZ
    The petitioner Hickok Manufacturing Co. sought to cancel the trademark registration of respondent Lim Bun Liong for using the name "Hickok" for his Marikina shoes. The Director of Patent initially granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trademarks were different in design, coloring, and words on ribbons. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that while trademarks need not be identical, they must be considered in their entirety in relation to the goods. Emphasis is on similarity of products, not classification. The Court found the products were unrelated and non-competing, as petitioner's goods were men's accessories manufactured in the Philippines but labeled as foreign, while respondent's shoes were clearly labeled "Made in Marik

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    HICKOK MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

    , vs, COURT OF APPEALS and SANTOS


    LIM BUN LIONG,
    G.R. No. L-44707 August 31, 1982
    Facts:
    Petitioner Hickok Manufacturing Co. is a foreign corporation which registered
    the trademark HICKOK for its various products of leather wallets, key cases, money
    folds made of leather, belts, mens briefs, neckties, handkerchiefs and mens socks;
    its products are manufactured by Quality House, Inc., a Philippine-based company.
    On the other hand, private respondent Lim Bun Liong is registrant of a trademark of
    the same name HICKOK for its Marikina shoes. Both products have different
    channels of trade. Hickok filed a petition to cancel the respondents registration of
    the trademark.
    The Director of Patent granted the petition of Hickok. On appeal, the Court of
    Appeals reversed the directors decision and dismissed Hickoks original petition for
    cancellation on the ground that the trademarks of petitioner and that of the
    registrant were different in design and coloring, as well as in the words on the
    ribbons. Hence, this present appeal.
    Issue:
    WON the registration of Lim Bun Liongs trademark for his Hickok Marikina shoes
    should be cancelled
    Held: NO
    Ruling:
    The Court affirmed the appellate courts decision. While the law does not
    require that the competing trademarks be identical, the two marks must be
    considered in their entirety, as they appear in the respective labels, in relation to
    the goods to which they are attached.
    Emphasis should be on the similarity of the products involved and not on the
    arbitrary classification or general description of their properties or characteristics
    and that the mere fact that one person has adopted and used a trademark on his
    goods does not prevent the adoption and use of the same trademark by others on
    unrelated articles of a different kind.
    Petitioner, a foreign corporation registered the trademark for its diverse
    articles of men's wear such as wallets, belts and men's briefs which are all
    manufactured here in the Philippines but are so labelled as to give the
    misimpression that the said goods are of foreign (stateside) manufacture and that
    respondent secured its trademark registration exclusively for shoes (which neither
    petitioner nor the licensee ever manufactured or traded in) and which are clearly
    labelled in block letters as "Made in Marikina, Rizal, Philippines," no error can be
    attributed to the appellate court in upholding respondent's registration of the same
    trademark for his unrelated and non-competing product of Marikina shoes.

    You might also like