ASIA BREWERY Vs CA

ASIA BREWERY VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SAN MIGUEL CORP.
- Unfair Competition Nobody can acquire any exclusive right to market articles supplying the simple human needs in containers or wrappers of the general form, size and character commonly and immediately used in marketing such articles. FACTS: San Miguel Corp. (SMC) filed a complaint against Asia Brewery Inc. (ABI) for infringement of trademark and unfair competition. RTC dismissed the complaint finding that ABI has not committed trademark infringement or unfair competition. The CA reversed the decision finding that ABI is guilty of trademark infringement and unfair competition thus the case at bar. -OR San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a complaint against Asia Brewery Inc. (ABI) for infringement of trademark and unfair competition on account of the latter's BEER PALE PILSEN or BEER NA BEER product which has been competing with SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN for a share of the local beer market. It alleged that the bottles used by Asia Brewery were confusingly similar to those used by SMC in the packaging of its beer. The trial court dismissed SMC's complaint because ABI "has not committed trademark infringement or unfair competition against" SMC On appeal by SMC, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision rendered by the trial court, finding the defendant Asia Brewery Incorporated GUILTY of infringement of trademark and unfair competition. ABI then filed a petition for certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not ABI infringes SMCs trademark and as such constitutes unfair competition HELD: NO Infringement is determined by a test of dominancy. If the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement takes place. A closer look at the trademark of both companies will show that the dominant features of each absolutely bear no similarity to each other. SMCs dominant trademark is the name of the product, San Miguel Pale Pilsen written in white Gothic letters with elaborate serifs at the beginning and end of the letters S and M on an amber background while ABIs is the name Beer Pale Pilsen with the word Beer written in large amber letters, larger than any of the letter found in SMC label. The word pale pilsen on ABIs trademark does not constitute trademark infringement for it is a generic word descriptive of the color of a type of beer. No one may appropriate generic or descriptive words for they belong to the public domain. ABI is likewise not guilty of unfair competition for unfair competition is the employment of deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which a person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him for those of another who has already established goodwill for his similar goods. The universal test for this is whether the public is likely to be deceived. Actual or probable deception and confusion on the part of the customers by reason of defendants practices must appear. However, this is unlikely to happen in the case at bar for consumers generally order beer by brand. Also, the fact that ABI also uses amber-colored steinie bottles cannot constitute unfair competition for ABI did not copy SMCs bottle. SMC did not invent but merely borrowed the steinie bottle from abroad. Likewise, amber is the most effective color in preventing transmission of light thus providing maximum protection to beer. 320 ml is likewise the standard prescribed under Metrication Circular No. 778. The fact that it is the first to use the steinie bottle does not give SMC a vested right to use it to the exclusion of everyone else. Nobody can acquire any exclusive right to market articles supplying the simple human needs in containers or wrappers of the general form, size and character commonly and immediately used in marketing such articles. There is no confusing similarity between the competing beers therefore ABI neither infringed SMCs trademark nor did it commit unfair competition.
Using the holistic test, wherein all circumstances were given consideration, there was no infringement committed by petitioner. There are two tests available for colorable imitation. One is the dominancy test. If the form, marks, contents, words of other special arrangement or general appearance of the two marks or devices are such as would likely mislead persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article, then the similarity is such as would entitle the opposer to equitable protection. Under the holistic test, on the other hand, the opposing trademarks are compared in their entirety to determine confusing similarity.
The Supreme Court said it does not constitute an infringement as the words PALE PILSEN, which are part of ABIs trademark, are generic words descriptive of the color (pale), of a type of beer (pilsen), which is a light bohemian beer with a strong hops flavor that originated in the City of Pilsen, Czechislovakia and became famous in the Middle Ages. The Supreme Court further said that the words "pale pilsen" may not be appropriated by SMC for its exclusive use even if they are part of its registered trademark. No one may appropriate generic or descriptive words. They belong to the public domain. Petitioner ABI has neither infringed SMC's trademark nor committed unfair competition with the latter's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN product.

ASIA BREWERY Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIA BREWERY Vs CA

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

ASIA BREWERY Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIA BREWERY VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SAN MIGUEL CORP.

You might also like