In a 23-page decision penned by Associate Justice Cancio Garcia, the High Court’s second division affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling which declared that the similarities in Philip Morris and Fortune’s trademarks are insufficient to cause confusion and deception tantamount to infringement.
"While petitioners (Philip Morris) have registered the trademarks Mark VII, Mark Ten Lark, for cigarettes in the Philippines, prior actual commercial use thereof had not been proven. In fact, petitioner’s judicial admission of not doing business in this country effectively belies any pretension to the contrary" the High Court said.
The High Court said the public will not be confused since there was no actual commercial use of Fortune Tobacco of Philip Morris, its subsidiaries Benson and Hedges (Canada), Inc., and Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, S.A, now known as Philip Morris Products S.A, trademarks in the country.
"Contrary to what petitioners (Philip Morris) suggest, the registration of trademark cannot be deemed conclusive as to the actual use of such trademark in local commerce. As it were, registration does not confer upon the registrant an absolute right to the registered mark" the High Court said. In its petition for review, Philip Morris insisted that Fortune Tobacco’s Mark trademark is confusingly or deceptively similar with their duly registered trademarks.
Philip Morris said they can file a complaint before a Philippine court for infringement of trademarks or unfair competition, without need of obtaining registration or a license to do business in the country and without necessity of actually doing business in the country.
Philip Morris cited that this right and mechanism are accorded by Section 21-A of Republic Act 166, as amended, or the Trademark Law and by Article 2 of the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property also known as the Paris Convention.
In ruling in favor of Fortune Tobacco, the Tribunal said that although Philip Morris’ home countries and the Philippines are members of the Paris Union, this does not automatically entitle Philip Morris to the protection of their trademarks in the Philippines absent the actual use of the marks in local commerce and trade.
"True, the Philippines’ adherence to the Paris Convention effectively obligates the country to honor and enforce its provisions as regards the protection of industrial property of foreign nationals in this country. However, any protection accorded has to be made subject to the limitations of Philippine laws" the High Court said.
The High Court said the jurisprudence has developed two tests, such as the dominancy test and the holistic test, to determine the similarity and likelihood of confusion.
The High Court said that using the holistic test, the CA was correct in ruling that Fortune Tobacco’s products cannot be mistaken as any of the three cigarette brands of Philip Morris.
"But even if the dominancy test were to be used, as urged by the petitioners (Philip Morris), but bearing in mind that a trademark serves as a tool to point out distinctly the origin or ownership of the goods to which it is affixed, the likelihood of confusion tantamount to infringement appears to be farfetched" the High Court said.
The High Court said since the word Mark, be it alone or in combination with the word Ten and Roman numeral VII, does not point to the origin or ownership of the cigarettes to which they apply, "the local buying public could not possibly be confused to or deceived that respondent’s Mark is the product of petitioners and/or originated from the USA, Canada or Switzerland."
Court records showed that on Aug. 18, 1982, Philip Morris and its subsidiaries filed the complaint for infringement and damages against Fortune Tobacco before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) for manufacturing and selling cigarettes bearing the trademark "Mark" which is identical and confusingly similar to Philip Morri’s trademarks.
The Pasig RTC dismissed Philip Morris’ complaint on Nov. 3, 1999.
The Pasig RTC said that the trademarks of Philip Morris "do not themselves or by association point distinctly to the origin or ownership of the cigarettes to which they refer, such that the buying public could not be deceived into believing that Mark cigarettes originated either from the US, Canada or Switzerland."
The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the Pasig RTC on Jan. 21, 2003.