Facts:

Respondent Toribio Teodoro has continuously used "Ang Tibay," both as a trade-mark and as a trade-name, in the manufacture and sale of slippers, shoes, and indoor baseballs since 1910. On September 29, 1915, he formally registered it as trade-mark and as trade-name on January 3, 1933.

Petitioner Ana Ang registered the same trade-mark "Ang Tibay" for pants and shirts on April 11, 1932, and established a factory for the manufacture of said articles in the year 1937.

The Court of First Instance of Manila absolved the defendant (Ms. Ang) on the grounds that the two trademarks are dissimilar and are used on different and non-competing goods; that there had been no exclusive use of the trade-mark by the plaintiff; and that there had been no fraud in the use of the said trade-mark by the defendant because the goods on which it is used are essentially different from those of the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeals reversed said judgment, directing the Director of Commerce to cancel the registration of the trade-mark "Ang Tibay" in favor of petitioner, and perpetually enjoining the latter from using said trade-mark on goods manufactured and sold by her.

Thus, this case, a petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Are the goods or articles or which the two trademarks are used similar or belong to the same class of merchandise?

Ruling:

Yes, pants and shirts are goods closely similar to shoes and slippers. They belong to the same class of merchandise as shoes and slippers. They are closely related goods.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and added that “although two non-competing articles may be classified under to different classes by the Patent Office because they are deemed not to possess the same descriptive properties, they would, nevertheless, be held by the courts to belong to the same class if the simultaneous use on