Faberge v IAC Digest

G.R. No. 71189, November 4, 1992

Facts of the Case:
Co Beng Kay applied for the registration of the trademark 'BRUTE' to be used it its underwear (briefs) products. The
petitioner opposed on the ground that there is similarity with their own symbol (BRUT, Brut33 & Device) used on its
aftershave, deodorant, cream shave, hairspray and hair shampoo/soaps and that it would cause injury to their
business reputation. It must be noted that the petitioner never applied for registration of said trademark for its brief
products. The Patent Office allowed Co Beng Kay the registration and this was further affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Issue: Is there confusing similarity between the challenged marks and that its use would likely cause
confusion on the part of the purchasers?
HELD: NONE. Co Beng Kay may rightly appropriate the mark. In this case Sec. 20 (Philippine Intellectual Property
Law) is controlling. The certificate of registration issued confers the exclusive right to use its own symbol only to those
goods specified by the first user in the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated therein. Moreover, the
two products are so dissimilar that a purchaser of one (a brief) would not be misled or mistaken into buying the other
(such as an aftershave).