Threatened legacy due to trademark infringement; the

Green Cross Saga

In the Gonzalo Laboratory was established by Gonzalo

Go in 1952. He was the son of Co Ay Tian. He lived a very
simple life during his childhood in the ancestral home of the
Co family in China before he went to the Philippines. He
worked as a bodegero and cusinero in Manila Commercial
Company. In 1949 he was promoted as a treasurer that is
when he started selling alcohol called gray cross rubbing
alcohol.
In 1950, import control was imposed by the Central
Bank. Manila Commercial Company experienced scarcity of
supplies, which led to the downfall of the company.
In 1952, Gonzalo Laboratory was established. Gonzalo
Laboratorys first and only product then was Green Cross
Rubbing Alcohol. It was registered in the Bureau of Patent
under the name of Gonzalo Go. Green Cross was very
successful since it was marketed in leading drug stores.
The second product of Gonzalo Laboratory was Zonrox,
a bleaching product. It became a popular household item
and outsold Green Cross Alcohol. Zonrox was originally
named Gonrox, Gon from Gonzalo, and rox from the
imported brand Chlorox.
Gonzalo Go filed an application for registry of the
Zonrox trademark with the Philippine Patents Office on
September 23, 1963. The trademark was awarded to him on
November 12, 1964 under the first to use doctrine since
he had been using the Zonrox brand since January 15, 1960.

Family dispute arises that led to the changed of name

of Gonzalo Laboratories, Inc to Green Cross, Inc. completely
voting out Gonzalo Go out of the company.
The conflict started sometime in 2004 when IPO also
granted Green Cross, Inc the rights to the brand under the
doctrine of first use, notwithstanding the fact that it had
already been awarded to Gonzalo in 1964.
Gonzalo Go as the rightful owner of the trademark of
Zonrox filed a case demanding the cancellation of the rights
awarded to Green Cross, Inc. He presented evidence to
prove his right over the Trademark of Zonrox but it was
excluded by the hearing officer.

Protection of a Right; Trademark

In
Philippine
jurisprudence,
the
function
of
a trademark is to point out distinctly the origin or ownership
of the goods to which it is affixed; to secure to him, who has
been instrumental in bringing into the market a superior
article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and
skill; to assure the public that they are procuring the
genuine
article; to prevent
fraud
and
imposition;
and to protect the manufacturer against substitution and
sale of an inferior and different article of his product. Modern
authorities on trademark law view trademarks as performing
three distinct functions: (1) they indicate origin or ownership
of the articles to which they are attached; (2) they
guarantee that those articles come up to a certain standard
of quality; and (3) they advertise the articles they
symbolize.1

Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114508, November 19, 1999

|||

It is defined in under R.A. 166, the Trademark Law, as

including "any word, name, symbol, emblem, sign or device
or any combination thereof adopted and used by a
manufacturer or merchant to identify his goods and
distinguish them from those manufactured, sold or dealt in
by others." This definition has been simplified in R.A. No.
8293, the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines,
which defines a "trademark", as "any visible sign capable of
distinguishing goods.
The trademark can be protected through registration.
The right to a trademark is granted to the one who first files
a trademark application with the IP Philippines. The act of
registering gives the trademark owner the exclusive right to
use the mark and to prevent others from using the same or
similar marks on identical or related goods and services.

Trademark Registration; First use doctrine

The right was granted to Gonzalo Go Gonzalo on

November 12, 1964 under the first to use doctrine since
he had been using the Zonrox brand since January 15, 1960.
It was also awarded to Green Cross, Inc sometime in 2004
under the doctrine of first use, notwithstanding the fact
that it had already been awarded to Gonzalo in 1964.
In the case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held
that. An applicant for registration is not bound by the date
of first use as stated by him in his application, but is
entitled to carry back said stated date of first use to a prior
date by proper evidence; but in order to show an earlier

date of use, he is then under a heavy burden and his proof

must be clear and convincing.2
Gonzalo Go presented presenting Twenty Eight (28)
documents as evidence. However, during the requisite
preliminary conference in January 2013, the hearing officer;
Atty. Alon ordered the exclusion of 11 of Gonzalos evidence,
including various affidavits, a report from the NBI, and
resolutions from the Department of Justice. Due to the
exclusion of evidence, makes his claim to the right weak.
Remedies for Trademark Owner
The owner of the registered mark may avail the
remedies provided by the law.
He recover damages from any person who infringes his
rights, and the measure of the damages suffered shall be
either the reasonable profit which the complaining party
would have made, had the defendant not infringed his rights,
or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the
infringement, or in the event such measure of damages
cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty,
then the court may award as damages a reasonable
percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the
defendant or the value of the services in connection with
which the mark or trade name was used in the infringement
of the rights of the complaining party.3
In cases where actual intent to mislead the public or to
defraud the complainant is shown, in the discretion of the
court, the damages may be doubled.4

Anchor Trading Co., Inc. vs. The Director of Patents, et al., L-8004, 30 May 1956

Section 156.., R.A. No. 8293

Section 156.3, R.A. No. 8293

The court may impound during the pendency of the

action, sales invoices and other documents evidencing sales
upon the application of the complainant.5

CONCLUSION
Limited protection on trademark is given to the owner
of the mark. It can only be acquired through registration and
subject to limited period provided by the law. An owner is
given remedies when there is infringement of a right; he is
entitled to damages caused by such infringement.
An owner of the mark should not sleep on his right. He
cannot avail the remedies provided if he cannot duly prove
that he is the owner of the right.

Section 156.2., R.A. No. 8293

Related articles: