TALACTAC, Aira Rowena A.

2017400080
LIP SPL-G

Part 1.
Infringement is limited in scope as it is the unauthorized use of a trademark. It
involves the same class of goods or services. Unfair competition is wider in scope. It is
the passing off of one’s goods as those of another and it involves different classes of
goods and services. In infringement, fraudulent intent is unnecessary and prior
registration of the trademark is a prerequisite to the action. While, there must be
fraudulent intent in unfair competition and registration is not necessary to the action.

Part 2. 
a) false designation of origin
– It is the use of any words, term, name, symbol, or device, or any false
designation of origin that will likely cause confusion, or to cause mistake,
or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such
person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval
of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person.
b) false representation/designation
– It is the use of any words, term, name, symbol, or device, or any false or
misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact
that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic
origins of goods, service, or activities.

Part 3. 
I.

1. As counsel for Ginebra San Miguel, Inc., I would build up an infringement case
against Tanduay Distillers, Inc. by stating that “Ginebra” has become distinctive
to San Miguel’s products due to its substantially exclusive and continuous use.
Thus, Tanduay’s use of “Ginebra” constitutes unauthorized use of trademark.

2. As counsel for GSMI, I would build up a case of unfair competition against TDI by
stating the San Miguel will suffer irreparable injury if the manufacture and sale of
Tanduay’s Ginebra Kapitan will continue. There may rise a confusion of goods.
Purchaser will be confused as to what type of product they are to buy between
San Miguel’s Ginebra San Miguel and Tanduay’s Ginebra Kapitan because both
are generally similar in appearance. Thus, there is passing off of one’s goods as
to those of another.

3. If I were the counsel for TDI, I would argue against the infringement charges by
stating that “Ginebra” is a generic term which is incapable of exclusive
appropriation. San Miguel does not have exclusive right to the word “ Ginebra.”
Tanduay’s use of the term “Ginebra” is merely descriptive of the name of the
 product and not of the manufacturer. Tanduay has been producing gin products
under the term “ Ginebra.” Thus, San Miguel cannot claim exclusive right.

4. If I were the counsel for TDI, I would argue against the charges for unfair
competition by presenting the differences of the two products as to its
appearance. First, the Ginebra Kapitan bottle is slightly taller and slimmer.
Second, Ginebra Kapitan is cheaper than Ginebra San Miguel. And the bottles of
Kapitan uses a resealable twist cap which is different from San Miguel’s. These
differences do not give rise to unfair competition.

II.

The Supreme Court applied the holistic test in the Del Monte v. CA case because the
features of the product will cause confusion to a casual purchaser. In this case,
Sunshine chose the same colors, letters, and design as the Del Monte product. On the
other hand, the Supreme Court applied the dominancy test in the Asia Brewery, Inc. v.
CA case because there are differences in the dominant features of Asia Brewery’s
trademark name, appearance and bottle containers. Neither the sound, spelling, and
look of the product will deceive the consumer.