Upload
lynlyn-jaranilla
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Asia Brewery Vs
1/3
ASIA BREWERY VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SAN MIGUEL CORP.- Unfair
Competition
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
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) forinfringement 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not ABI infringes SMCs trademark and as such constitutes
unfair competition
HELD: NO
7/30/2019 Asia Brewery Vs
2/3
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 whohas 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
7/30/2019 Asia Brewery Vs
3/3
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.
Dissenting Opinion of J. Cruz:
Side-by-side comparison is not the final test of similarity because average buyers
do not make minute scrutiny of label details. The average shopper is usually in a
hurry and does not inspect every product on the shelf is if he were browsing in a
library.