THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO GENATO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The accused, as vice-president and general manager of the Genato
Commercial Corporation, having been found guilty of violation of Act
No. 3202, as amended by Act No. 3594, for having sold and distributed
in Manila cigarettes bearing the trade-mark “Domino” consigned to said
corporation at Manila, without first registering said trade-mark in the
Bureau of Commerce, he was sentenced to pay a fine of P200 or to suffer
the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus
the costs. The accused appealed from said judgment.

The
facts are undisputed. In this appeal, the only question raised is the
question of law consisting in whether or not the above-cited laws are
applicable, with respect to the registration of trade-marks, to
cigarettes manufactured in the United States and imported to Manila for
distribution and sale.

The appellant raised the same
question in the Court of First Instance by means of a demurrer which
was overruled, and in his brief before this court, he reproduces the
same question to a greater extent.

The appellant contends
that Act No. 3202, as well as the amendatory Act No. 3954, making
compulsory the registration of a trade-mark for cigars and cigarettes
in the Bureau of Commerce, has for its purpose solely to protect local
manufacturers, this being the reason for the absence in both of the
above-cited laws of any provision referring to imported cigarettes.

While it is true that said laws have been promulgated to protect the
local cigar and cigarette industry, it is not true, however, that the
provisions thereof, making the registration of trade-marks compulsory,
are not applicable to cigarettes manufactured in the United States and
brought into the Philippines with a trade-mark, for distribution and
sale. To carry out their purpose, said laws have to impose as they in
fact impose, as obligatory, not only the registration of trade-marks
used by local factories but also those to be used in the Philippines by
manufacturers in the United States and in foreign countries. If it were
not so, the purpose of the laws would be completely illusory, and the
local cigar and cigarette manufacturers would have no adequate
protection against usurpers of their trade-marks or trade-names.
Suppose a particular trade-mark had been adopted and registered
beforehand by some manufacturer in the Philippines, and some years
later it was imitated and used on cigarettes manufactured in Virginia,
United States, and imported into the Philippines for distribution and
sale. If, according to the theory of the appellant, the trade-mark used
on cigarettes manufactured in Virginia need not be registered in the
Philippines, then the Virginia manufacturers and their agents or
distributors in the Philippines would be able to wage with impunity a
ruinous competition against the local manufacturer who is using and has
registered the same trade-mark. To avoid the occurrence of such
competition, section 1 of Act No. 3202, as amended by Act No. 3954,
provides as follows:

“With the exception of
trade-marks and trade-names already registered under the provisions of
Act Numbered Six hundred and sixty-six, as amended, no trade-mark or
trade-name shall be used on cigars or cigarettes in the Philippine
Islands without having first been registered in the Bureau of Commerce
and Industry, * * *.”

It should be noted
that the foregoing provision does not say “on cigars or cigarettes
manufactured in the Philippines,” but that “no trade-mark or trade-name shall be used on cigars or cigarettes in the Philippine Islands“, making no distinction of their origin or country of their manufacture.

By means of the compulsory registration of a trade-mark or trade-name,
the local manufacturers are given the opportunity to oppose the
application for registration if the trade-mark or trade-name sought to
be registered is an imitation of the one they are already using and
have registered for their cigars and cigarettes. To this effect,
section 2 of Act No. 3202 provides for the publication of the
application in the Official Gazette and the service of notice thereof
upon the “Manila Tobacco Association” and other similar associations.

The very conduct of Larus & Brother Company, manufacturers in
Virginia, United States, of the cigarettes bearing the trade-mark
“Domino”, in applying for the registration of said trade-mark, alter
the cigarettes in question had been received and sold in Manila by the
corporation of which the accused is the general manager, shows that the
legal necessity of registering said trade-mark was recognized by Larus
& Brother Company which the accused represents. This estops the
accused from raising the question of inapplicability of said laws to
the present case.

The appellant contends that if there has
been any violation, Larus & Brother Company was the involuntary
violator, but that the accused is entirely innocent Larus & Brother
Company, according to him, applied for the registration of the
trade-mark long before any question on this case was ever raised,
thereby proving the good faith of Larus & Brother Company. This
court is of the opinion that the allegation of good faith and innocence
does not constitute a valid defense, it having been admitted that
cigarettes bearing the trade-mark “Domino” were distributed and sold in
the Philippines, without first registering said trade-mark, which
constitutes a violation of the above-cited laws (U. S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil., 128; People vs. Bayona, 61 Phil., 181).

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.