G.R.No.114508.November19,1999.] MYRTLE PRIBHDAS J. MIRPURI,petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DIRECTOROFPATENTS and the BARBIZON CORPORATION,respondents. 22. G.R.No. 120900.

July 20, 2000.] CANONKABUSHIKI KAISHA,petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALSandNSR RUBBER CORPORATION,respondents. On January25, 1985,privaterespondentNSR RubberCorporation filed anapplication for registration of the mark CANON for sandals in the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPTTT). A verified Notice of Opposition was filed by petitioner, a foreign corporationduly organizedandexistingunderthelaws of Japan, allegingthat itwill bedamaged by theregistrationof thetrademark CANONinvarious countries coveringgoods belonging to Class 2 (paints,chemicalproducts, toneranddye stuff). Petitioner also submitted inevidence its Philippine Trademark Registration No. 39398, showing ownership over the trademark CANON also under Class 2. On November 10, 1992 the BPTTT issued its decision dismissing the opposition of petitioner and giving due course to private respondents application for the registrationofthe trademarkCANON.On February 16, 1993,petitionerappealedthedecision of the BPTTT with public respondent CA that eventually affirmed the decision of BPTTT. Hence, this petition for review. ISSUE:Whethertherespondentcanuse as its trademarkthewordCANON HELD:YES.TheBPTTT andCA sharethe opinionthatthetrademarkCANONasusedby petitioner for its paints, chemical products, toner and dyestuff can be used by private respondent for it s sandals because the products of these two parties are dissimilar. Petitioner protests theappropriationof the markCANONbyprivaterespondentonthegroundthat petitionerhas used and continuestouse thetrademark CANON inits wide range of goods worldwide. Allegedly, the corporate name or tradename of petitioner is also used as its trademarkondiverse goods includingfootwearandotherrelated products like shoepolisher andpolishing agents. Tolend credenceto its claim,petitionerpointsoutthat ithas branched out in itsbusiness basedonthe various goods carrying its trademarkCANON,private respondent sought to register the mark CANON. For petitioner, the fact alone that its trademark CANON is carriedbyits otherproducts like footwear,shoe polisherandpolishingagents shouldhave precludedthe BPTTT fromgivingdue course totheapplicationof privaterespondent. The SC findsthearguments ofpetitionertobeunmeritorious.Ordinarily,theownership ofatrademark or tradename is a property right that the owner is entitled to protect as mandated by the Trademark Law.However, whenatrademark isusedbyapartyforaproduct in whichtheother party does not deal, the use of the same trademark on the latters product cannot be validly objected.