12 Asia - Pacific - Resources - International - Case Digest

ASIA PACIFIC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, with the SEC, having been organized and existing since March
rganized and existing since March 30, 2001. Its

LTD., vs. PAPERONE, INC., G.R. NO. 213365-66. DECEMBER 10, business name was likewise registered with the DTI. Respondent also
2018 denied any awareness of the existence of petitioner and/or the registration of
PAPER ONE, as the latter is a foreign corporation not doing business in the
DOCTRINES: Philippines. While the business of respondent dealt with paper conversion
(1) The essential elements of an action for unfair competition are: (1) such as manufacture of table napkins, notebooks and intermediate/collegiate
confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) writing pads, it did not use its corporate name PAPERONE on any of its
intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor. products. Further, its products had been widely sold in the Philippines even
(2) Two types of confusion: (1) confusion of goods (product confusion) before petitioner could claim any business transaction in the country.
for competing products, and (2) confusion of business (source or
origin confusion) for non-competing but related products. In its decision, the BLA Director, IPO, found respondent liable for unfair
competition. There was, however, no trademark infringement since PAPER
FACTS: ONE was registered in the Philippines only in 2003. On appeal to the IPO
Director General, the BLA decision was affirmed with modification on the
The dispute in this case arose from a complaint for unfair competition, amount of attorney’s fees. In its decision, the CA reversed and set aside the
trademark infringement, and damages filed against respondent (Paperone) IPO Director General's decision. It held that there was no confusing
by petitioner (APRIL). similarity in the general appearance of the goods of both parties.
APRIL is engaged in the production, marketing, and sale of pulp and ISSUES:
premium wood free paper. It alleged that it is the owner of a well-known (1) Whether respondent is liable for unfair competition, and
trademark, PAPER ONE, with Certificate of Registration issued on (2) Whether petitioner is entitled to actual damages.
September 5, 2003. The said trademark enjoyed legal protection in different (The issue of trademark infringement is not the subject of the appeal before the
countries worldwide and enjoyed goodwill and high reputation because of SC)
aggressive marketing and promotion. Petitioner claimed that the use of
PAPERONE in respondent's corporate name without its prior consent and RULING:
authority was done in bad faith and designed to unfairly ride on its good (1) YES. Respondent is liable for unfair competition.
name and to take advantage of its goodwill. It was calculated to mislead the
public into believing that respondent's business and/or products were The essential elements of an action for unfair competition are: (1) confusing
manufactured, licensed or sponsored by petitioner. It was also alleged that similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive
respondent had presumptive, if not actual knowledge, of petitioner's rights the public and defraud a competitor. Unfair competition is always a
to the trademark PAPER ONE, even prior to respondent's application for question of fact. At this point, it bears to stress that findings of fact of the
registration of its corporate name before the SEC. highly technical agency — the IPO — which has the expertise in this field,
should have been given great weight by the CA.
Respondent, on its part, averred that it had no obligation to secure prior
consent or authority from petitioner to adopt and use its corporate name. a) Confusing similarity
The DTI and the SEC had allowed it to use Paperone, Inc., thereby negating
any violation on petitioner's alleged prior rights. Respondent was registered
The confusing similarity may or may not result from similarity in the marks, confusion as to the origin of the products. Thus, a consumer might conclude
but may result from other external factors in the packaging or presentation that PAPER ONE products are manufactured by or are products of
of the goods. Likelihood of confusion of goods or business is a relative Paperone, Inc. Additionally, although respondent claims that its products
concept, to be determined only according to peculiar circumstances of each are not the same as petitioner's, the goods of the parties are obviously
case. related as they are both kinds of paper products.
It can easily be observed that both have the same spelling and are The matter of prior right over PAPERONE, again, is a matter of factual
pronounced the same. Although respondent has a different logo, it was determination; therefore, we give credence to the findings of the IPO, who
always used together with its trade name. has the expertise in this matter, being supported by substantial evidence.
The Court has consistently recognized the specialized functions of the
At first glance, respondent may be correct that there would be no confusion administrative agencies by reason of their special knowledge and expertise
as to the presentation or packaging of its products since it is not using its over matters falling under their jurisdiction.
corporate name as a trademark of its goods/products. There is an apparent
dissimilarity of presentation of the trademark PAPER ONE and the trade The BLA Director found, as affirmed by the IPO Director General, that it
name and logo of Paperone, Inc. Nevertheless, a careful scrutiny of the was petitioner APRIL who has priority rights over PAPER ONE.
mark shows that the use of PAPERONE by respondent would likely cause Respondent was incorporated in March 2001 and was registered 2 years
confusion or deceive the ordinary purchaser, exercising ordinary care, into thereafter as business name with the DTI. Complainant APRIL on the other
believing that the goods bearing the mark are products of one and the same hand, presented evidence of its use of the label PaperOne on paper products
enterprise. in the Philippines earlier than the date of its trademark application in 1999.
Evidence shows that Respondent already knew of APRIL’s existence prior
Relative to the issue on confusion of marks and trade names, jurisprudence to Respondent's incorporation as Paper One, Inc. in 2001.
has noted two types of confusion, viz.: (1) confusion of goods (product
confusion), where the ordinarily prudent purchaser would be induced to b) Intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor
purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the other; and (2)
confusion of business (source or origin confusion), where, although the The element of intent to deceive and to defraud may be inferred from the
goods of the parties are different, the product, the mark of which similarity of the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public.
registration is applied for by one party, is such as might reasonably be Contrary to the ruling of the CA, actual fraudulent intent need not be
assumed to originate with the registrant of an earlier product; and the public shown. Factual circumstances were established showing that respondent
would then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is adopted PAPERONE in its trade name even with the prior knowledge of the
some connection between the two parties, though inexistent. Thus, while existence of PAPER ONE as a trademark of petitioner. As in all other cases
there is confusion of goods when the products are competing, confusion of of colorable imitations, the unanswered riddle is why, of the millions of
business exists when the products are non-competing but related enough to terms and combinations of letters available, respondent had to choose those
produce confusion of affiliation. so closely similar to another's trademark if there was no intent to take
advantage of the goodwill generated by the other mark.
This case falls under the second type of confusion. Although we see a
noticeable difference on how the trade name of respondent is being used in
its products as compared to the trademark of petitioner, there could likely be
(2) NO. The actual damages prayed for cannot be granted because
petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to prove the amount
claimed and the basis to measure actual damages

12 Asia - Pacific - Resources - International - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Asia - Pacific - Resources - International - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

12 Asia - Pacific - Resources - International - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIA PACIFIC RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, with the SEC, having been organized and existing since March

rganized and existing since March 30, 2001. Its

You might also like