Shang v. St. Francis Case Digest

19.
Shang Properties v. St. Francis Development Corporation

GR No. 190706; July 21, 2014
FACTS:
Respondent domestic corporation is engaged in the real estate business and is the
developer of the St. Francis Square Commercial Center (built sometime in 1992).
It filed separate complaints against petitioners before the IPO - BLA, namely:
(a) IPV Case an intellectual property violation case for unfair competition,
false or fraudulent declaration, and damages arising from petitioners use
and filing of applications for the registration of the marks THE ST. FRANCIS
TOWERS and THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE,; and
(b) St. Francis Towers IP Case an inter partes case opposing the
petitioners application for registration of the mark THE ST. FRANCIS
TOWERS for use relative to the latters business, particularly the
construction of permanent buildings or structures for residential and office
purposes; and
(c) St. Francis Shangri-La IP Case an inter partes case opposing the
petitioners application for registration of the mark THE ST. FRANCIS
SHANGRI-LA PLACE,.
Respondent alleged that it has used the mark ST. FRANCIS to identify its
numerous property development projects located at Ortigas Center, such as the
aforementioned St. Francis Square Commercial Center, a shopping mall called the
St. Francis Square, and a mixed-use realty project plan that includes the St.
Francis Towers. Respondent added that as a result of its continuous use of the mark
ST. FRANCIS in its real estate business, it has gained substantial goodwill with the
public that consumers and traders closely identify the said mark with its property
development projects. Accordingly, respondent claimed that petitioners could not
have the mark THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS registered in their names, and that
petitioners use of the marks THE ST. FRANCIS TOWERS and THE ST. FRANCIS
SHANGRI-LA PLACE in their own real estate development projects constitutes unfair
competition as well as false or fraudulent declaration.
Petitioners denied committing unfair competition and false or fraudulent
declaration, maintaining that they could register the mark THE ST. FRANCIS
TOWERS and THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE under their names. They
contended that respondent is barred from claiming ownership and exclusive use of
the mark ST. FRANCIS because the same is geographically descriptive of the
goods or services for which it is intended to be used. This is because respondents
as well as petitioners real estate development projects are located along the
streets bearing the name St. Francis, particularly, St. Francis Avenue and St.
Francis Street (now known as Bank Drive), both within the vicinity of the Ortigas
Center.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of unfair competition in using the marks THE
ST. FRANCIS TOWERS and THE ST. FRANCIS SHANGRI-LA PLACE.
RULING:
NO.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The unfair competition concept refers to the the passing off (or palming off) or
attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the
goods or business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the
public. Passing off (or palming off) takes place where the defendant, by imitative
devices on the general appearance of the goods, misleads prospective purchasers
into buying his merchandise under the impression that they are buying that of his
competitors. [In other words], the defendant gives his goods the general
appearance of the goods of his competitor with the intention of deceiving the public
that the goods are those of his competitor.
The true test of unfair competition has thus been whether the acts of the
defendant have the intent of deceiving or are calculated to deceive the ordinary
buyer making his purchases under the ordinary conditions of the particular trade to
which the controversy relates. Based on the foregoing, it is therefore essential to
prove the existence of fraud, or the intent to deceive, actual or probable,
determined through a judicious scrutiny of the factual circumstances attendant to a
particular case.
Here, the Court finds the element of fraud to be wanting; hence, there can be no
unfair competition. The CAs contrary conclusion was faultily premised on its
impression that respondent had the right to the exclusive use of the mark ST.
FRANCIS, for which the latter had purportedly established considerable goodwill.
What the CA appears to have disregarded or been mistaken in its disquisition,
however, is the geographically descriptive nature of the mark ST. FRANCIS which
thus bars its exclusive appropriability, unless a secondary meaning is acquired.
As deftly explained in the U.S. case of Great Southern Bank v. First Southern Bank:
[d]escriptive geographical terms are in the public domain in the sense
that every seller should have the right to inform customers of the
geographical origin of his goods. A geographically descriptive term is any noun
or adjective that designates geographical location and would tend to be regarded by
buyers as descriptive of the geographic location of origin of the goods or services. A
geographically descriptive term can indicate any geographic location on
earth, such as continents, nations, regions, states, cities, streets and addresses,
areas of cities, rivers, and any other location referred to by a recognized name. In
order to determine whether or not the geographic term in question is descriptively
used, the following question is relevant: (1) Is the mark the name of the place
or region from which the goods actually come? If the answer is yes, then
the geographic term is probably used in a descriptive sense, and
secondary meaning is required for protection.
Secondary meaning is established when a descriptive mark no longer causes the
public to associate the goods with a particular place, but to associate the goods
with a particular source. In other words, it is not enough that a geographicallydescriptive mark partakes of the name of a place known generally to the public to
be denied registration as it is also necessary to show that the public would make a
goods/place association
that is, to believe that the goods for which the mark is sought to be registered
originate in that place. However, where there is no genuine issue that the
geographical significance of a term is its primary significance and where the

geographical place is neither obscure nor remote, a public association of
the goods with the place may ordinarily be presumed from the fact that
the applicants own goods come from the geographical place named in the
mark.

Shang v. St. Francis Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shang v. St. Francis Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Shang v. St. Francis Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19.

Shang Properties v. St. Francis Development Corporation

geographical significance of a term is its primary significance and where the

You might also like