Thus, the word may he read as "Tafangit". Ballots Exhibits C-11, C-58, C-59, and C-85. Apr 18, 1941 (71 Phil. Idem sonans is a legal doctrine whereby a person's identity is presumed known despite the misspelling of his or her name. By Vicente B. Amador]. C-77) was improperly rejected and should be counted in favor of respondent. The Court of Appeals declared this ballot to be valid vote for Bernados saying that such Gothic lettering merely shows the desire of the voter to attain greater clearness and emphasis on his favorite candidate. Under UK jurisdiction, there has been little judicial activity in this area. No. Co Tlonq. Prohibition against taxation of non-stock, non-pro G.R. And in the fourth place, there being no candidate for councilor by the name of Juan C. Bajo, said name shall be considered as a stray vote which shall not invalidate the whole ballot (Par 13, Section 149, Revised Election Code). To emphasize, Section 5-A of Republic Act 166 requires the date of first use to be specified in the application for registration. 166 10 states that an applicant for a trademark or trade name shall, among others, state the date of first use. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Please enter a legal issue and/or a location, Begin typing to search, use arrow In resume, we find that three (3) ballots (Exhs. Petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting this ballot invoking the provision of paragraph 13, section 149 of the Revised Election Code, which provides that any vote in favor of a person who has not filed a certificate of candidacy shall be void and counted as a stray vote but shall not invalidate the whole ballot. Since the result of this protest is a tie, it is necessary that lots be drawn between the two candidates as provide for in Section 170 of the Revised Election Code. An infringement of intellectual rights is no less vicious and condemnable as theft of material property, whether personal or real. 82), G.R. 22792, which reversed, on reconsideration, its own September 29, 1998 Decision.2 The dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and the Decision dated September 29, 1998 REVERSED. 4 CA Decision, pp. Section 5-A of Republic Act No. Petitioner now questions the validity of these ballots for the first time on appeal before this Court. [8]. The question at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether the use of the marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or mistakes in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers. Apr 30, 1957 (101 Phil. We shall first rule upon the ballots disputed by petitioner. The court held that for the "purposes of identification" the doctrine applies, but refused to allow it in the transfer of real property. Ship company PRESUMED negligent for lost, damaged Tan v. Bausch (Case Digest. Moreover, in Section 149, paragraph 1, of the Revised, Election Code, it is provided that "any ballot where only the Christian name or only his surname appears is valid (paragraph 1). 692). It is a well settled rule in election contests that the marks which shall be considered sufficient to invalidate the ballot are those which the voter himself deliberately replaced on his ballot for the purpose of identifying it thereafter (Valenzuela v. Carlos and Lopez de Jesus, 42 Phil., 428). 171.Two names are said to be idem sonantes if the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing them when pronounced, or if common and long-continued usage has by corruption or abbreviation made them identical in pronunciation. Ballot Exhibit C-77. T-4, T-11 and T-94) were improperly rejected and should be counted in favor of petitioner. L-7704 [1954]; De Alban vs. Ferrer, G.R. In the main, the Court will resolve three issues: (1) the date of actual use of the two trademarks; (2) their confusing similarities, and (3) the applicability of the Paris Convention. In Latin it means "sounding the same." [1] Sounding the same or alike; having the same sound. Ballot Exhibit T-4. A mark with a different spelling but is similar in sound with a registered mark when read, may be ruled as being confusingly-similar with the said registered mark or senior mark. At the June 1985 trial, Orr fn. No. idem sonans adj [Latin, sounding the same] : relating to or being two names having the same or similar pronunciation or sound [the two names are not idem sonans " Johnson v. Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart (Case Digest. On the other hand, [petitioner's] trademark and device 'GOLD TOP, Linenized for Extra Wear' has the dominant color 'white' at the center and a 'blackish brown' background with a magnified design of the sock's garter, and is labeled 'Amigo Manufacturing Inc., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Made in the Philippines'. We agree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal that this ballot is null and void for having been filled by two distinct persons (Par. This ballot was rejected by the Court of Appeals as an illegal ballot for having been prepared by two persons, affirming the conclusion made by the lower court that the names appearing on the 4th line for senators and on the lines for governor and vice-governor were written by one person while the other names appearing therein were written by another. Hence, its Petition must fail. 13465 dated January 25, 1968; c) DEVICE, consisting of a 'plurality of gold colored lines arranged in parallel relation within a triangular area of toe of the stocking and spread from each other by lines of contrasting color of the major part of the stocking' under Certificate of Registration No. Jun 16, 1965 (121 Phil. Based on the evidence presented, this Court concurs in the findings of the Bureau of Patents that respondent had actually used the trademark and the devices in question prior to petitioner's use of its own. The facts, which are undisputed, are summarized by the Court of Appeals in its original Decision, as follows: "The source of the controversy that precipitated the filing by [herein Respondent] Cluett Peabody Co., Inc. (a New York corporation) of the present case against [herein Petitioner] Amigo Manufacturing Inc. (a Philippine corporation) for cancellation of trademark is [respondent's] claim of exclusive ownership (as successor in interest of Great American Knitting Mills, Inc.) of the following trademark and devices, as used on men's socks: a) GOLD TOE, under Certificate of Registration No. 4255). Balmaceda, G.R. Same Names "Yougn" and "Young" Held Idem Sonans. The Court in Martin went on to state that this Court will refrain from disturbing on appeal a jury determination that the names in question were idem sonans. An examination of the products in question shows that their dominant features are gold checkered lines against a predominantly black background and a representation of a sock with a magnifying glass. No. As its title implies, the test of dominancy focuses on the similarity of the prevalent features of the competing trademarks which might cause confusion or deception and thus constitutes infringement. Law School Case Brief; Nat'l Packaging Corp. v. Belmont - 47 Ohio App. As to the actual date of first use by respondent of the four marks it registered, the seeming confusion may have stemmed from the fact that the marks have different dates of first use. 188, 23 S. W. 878. d) LINENIZED, under Certificate of Registration No. 12 Villaflor v. CA, 280 SCRA 297, 329-330, October 9, 1997, per Panganiban, J. No. 2, pp. This ballot should, therefore, be counted in favor of petitioner who was voted thereon for the office of the mayor. Accessed 1 May. A trademark is any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services (service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container of goods. We are however of the opinion that the ballot Exhibit T-94 wherein the name "Ledesma" was written in big printed letters can be validated as being merely the expression of the voter to clarify or emphasize his vote in favor of Ledesma. 166 10 states that an applicant for a trademark or trade name shall, among others, state the date of first use. As held in Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 410 (1990), the question is not whether the two articles are distinguishable by their label when set aside but whether the general confusion made by the article upon the eye of the casual purchaser who is unsuspicious and off his guard, is such as to likely result in confounding it with the original. (Gutierrez v. Aquino, G.R. 172), G.R. In the European Union, a mark must be well-known, with courts determining just how well-known. T-6) and "Ledesma" (Exh. 125678. (h) Consists exclusively of signs that are generic for the goods or services that they seek to identify; (i) Consists exclusively of signs or of indications that have become customary or usual to designate the goods or services in everyday language or in bona fide and established trade practice; https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64829, Ordinary slam dunk with feet curled up together, Strapback cap with hook & loop fastener in reverse, Cannot be discerned/hidden in the baseball cap, "Healthy & Mighty" referring to the effect of taking the product, "Height is Might" also referring to the effect of taking the product. The rule on idem sonans is also a test to resolve the confusing similarity of trademarks. The financing statement contains information relevant to the secured transaction and puts other creditors on notice that the filer has a secured interest in the property. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the Paris Convention in holding that respondent ha[d] an exclusive right to the trademark 'gold toe' without taking into consideration the absence of actual use in the Philippines."8. All rights reserved. Respondent claims that the Court Appeals committed error in declaring a mere nickname as a valid vote for petitioner. G.R. Thus, in a later case, citing the case of Abrea v. Lloren, supra, it held that "As a general rule, isolated rotes in favor of a candidate designated by his nickname only, that is, not accompanied by his name or surname, are invalid (paragraph 9, Section 149 of the Revised Election Code (Campaner v. Alano, 46 O.G., 5029, December 16, 1948). Arturo S. Santos, was received by the Court on February 24, 2000. In Latin it means "Sounding the same." Ballot Exhibit T-144. Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila, G.R. ", The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation. In La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez,11 the Court held that registration with the supplemental register gives no presumption of ownership of the trademark. No. 1 Rollo, pp. This finding of fact made by the Court of Appeals based upon the evidence presented by the parties is no longer open for review by this Court (Hilao v. Bernados, supra). The decision pivots on two point: the application of the rule of idem sonans and the existence of a confusing similarity in appearance between two trademarks (Rollo, p. 2 argued the defendants had constructive notice of the abstract of judgment through application of the doctrine of idem sonans. Idem sonans is a legal doctrine whereby a person's identity is presumed known despite the misspelling of his or her name, if the misspelled name sounds the same when pronounced. Said the Court: "The registration of a mark upon the supplemental register is not, as in the case of the principal register, prima facie evidence of (1) the validity of registration; (2) registrant's ownership of the mark; and (3) registrant's exclusive right to use the mark. No. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor is it necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate. Petitioner points out that the director of patents erred in its application of the idem sonans rule, claiming that the two trademarks "Gold Toe" and "Gold Top" do not sound alike and are pronounced differently. resultant marks when pronounced are idem sonans or phonetically similar. In addition, these representations are at the same location, either in the sock itself or on the label. This is a petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals declaring respondent Manuel L. Cazeas duly elected Mayor of Dao, Antique, with a total of 1,564 vote as against a total of 1,563 votes received by petitioner Ernesto Tajanlangit, or a plurality of one (1) vote. Clearly, however, these dates are indicated in the Certificates of Registration. Ballots Exhibits T-83, T-84 and T-89. This ballot contains the name "Dimas Portillo Batring" written on the last line for councilors. First Issue: Consequently, Certificate of Registration No. Clearly, they were ahead of petitioner's claimed date of first use of "Gold Top and Device" in 1958. There is no evidence that this ballot was cast by Julia Valdelion or that she wrote or signed her name thereon. In the third place, there is no evidence that the name "Juan C. Bajo" was deliberately written on the ballot as a means to identify the voter. 16 See Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 410, January 25, 1990; Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 405, November 29, 1984. 119190; January 16, 1997), Retired top judge: 12 tips to pass the Bar exam, Did not finish the exam but she topped the bar. When the husband died, plaintiff was substituted in his place. ", In the present case, a resort to either the Dominancy Test or the Holistic Test shows that colorable imitation exists between respondent's "Gold Toe" and petitioner's "Gold Top." The fact that two trademarks are idem sonans may be used to establish the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers in an infringement case. The Supreme Court held: As to the syllabication and sound of the two trade-names "Sapolin" and . [4] A creditor may gain priority over other creditors in the event of a bankruptcy by filing a financing statement. Explain - Under the principle of idem sonans, two names are said to be similar only "if the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing them when pronounced." It is not so in the case at hand [Trademark under the Intellectual Property Code", '99 ed. 'GOLD TOE' and 'GOLD TOP' are printed in identical lettering. In other words, a mark placed on the ballot by a person other than the voter himself does not invalidate the ballot as marked. 1411), G.R. We agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the vote contained on this ballot cannot be counted in favor of the respondent. The fact that two trademarks are idem sonans may be used to establish the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers in an infringement case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on July 31, 1961, declaring Cazeas elected by a plurality of one (1) vote over petitioner Tajanlangit. Respondent claims that the Court of Appeals committed error in not counting these four ballots in his favor under the rule of idem sonans. [7] New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1994 took a stance on this doctrine and said "We concur with the court in Orr that "the simple alternative is to require [attachment creditors] simply to spell the names of their debtors properly."" This ballot was invalidated by the Court of Appeals as a marked ballot because the names Bernardino Dabandan, Alfredo Fernandez and Delfin Saymo, who were not candidates for any office and the last named person a registered voter in the precinct where the ballot was cast, were written on the ballot. We have carefully examined the ballots in question and we agree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals upholding the validity of these four ballots. 139300 March 14, 2001. G.R. 2 Rollo, pp. 1 Cromp. This is the doctrine enunciated in the case of Tabiana v. Abordo, supra, which we believe is applicable to the ballot in question. f CONCEPTS Meanwhile, the scope of a copyright is confined Petitioner contends that the word or nickname "Batring" which is not the nickname of candidate Dimas Postillo is a distinguishing mark sufficient to invalidate this ballot. (Sec. No. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the findings of the Director of Patents that petitioner's trademark [was] confusingly similar to respondent's trademarks. See 65 C.J.S. 1 Cromp. It contends that the claim of respondent that it had been using the "Gold Toe" trademark at an earlier date was not substantiated. Sapolin Co., Inc.v. A glance at petitioner's mark shows that it definitely has a lot of similarities and in fact looks like a combination of the trademark and devices that respondent has already registered; namely, "Gold Toe," the representation of a sock with a magnifying glass, the "Gold Toe" representation and "linenized.". - The application for the registration of a mark or trade-name shall be in English or Spanish, or in the national language, with its corresponding English translation, and signed by the applicant, and shall include: (a) Sworn statement of the applicant's domicile and citizenship, the date of the applicant's first use of the mark or trade-name, the date of the applicant's first use of the mark or trade-name in commerce or business, the goods, business or services in connection with which the mark or trade-name is used and the mode or manner in which the mark is used in connection with such goods, business or services, and that the person making the application believes himself, or the firm, corporation or association on whose behalf he makes the verification, to be the owner of the mark or trade-name sought to be registered, that the mark or trade-name is in use in commerce or business, and that to the best of his knowledge, no person, firm, corporation or association has the right to use such mark or trade-name in commerce or business either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as might be calculated to deceive. 11 129 SCRA 373, 393, May 21, 1984, per Gutierrez, J. 579]. . It was, therefore, properly rejected. The presumption lies in the similarity between the Phonology, or sounds of the correct name and the name as written. "Rights Sec. In . Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part. On Exhibit C-59, while the capital letter "M" was clearly written on the line for mayor the word following it is also illegible. 276-277. - can be one word, a group of words, sign, symbol, logo, or a combination of any of these. 13, Section 149, Revised Election Code). No. [Latin] (Of words or names) sounding the same, regardless of spelling <the names Gene and Jean are idem sonans>. Both also include a representation of a man's foot wearing a sock and the word "linenized" with arrows printed on the label. This Court must exercise an independent judgment as to whether the process sanctioned by the court of last resort of the state constituted due process of law; it is not bound by, nor can it merely accept, the decision of the state court on that question. "With respect to the issue of confusing similarity between the marks of the petitioner and that of the respondent-registrant applying the tests of idem sonans, the mark 'GOLD TOP & DEVICE' is confusingly similar with the mark 'GOLD TOE'. On Exhibit C-11, except for the letters, "Ma", the rest of the letters composing the word appearing on the line for mayor are illegible. The old judgment of R v Davis[2] provides: The modern case of Re Vidiofusion Ltd[3] establishes a four-stage test when a name of a company is spelled differently in writing: Remnants of this common law doctrine exist today in the United States in the Uniform Commercial Code. No. Thus, a trademark serves to distinguish the goods or services of a company from others. This page is not available in other languages. However, reversal will be required if the evidence shows that the names are patently incapable of being sounded the same.
Mykonos Sunrise Spots, Walton And Johnson Radio Stations In Louisiana, Articles I