Asia Brewery Inc.

vs CA and San Miguel Corporation

FACTS:

In 1988, San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a complaint against Asia Brewery Inc.
(ABI) for infringement of trademark and unfair competition since Asia Brewery Inc.
(ABIBEER )'s PALE PILSEN or BEER NA BEER product competed with San Miguel
Corporation's (SMC) SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN for a part of the local beer market.
The trial court, however, 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 Asia Brewery Inc. committed an infringement of trademark and unfair
competition against San Miguel Corporation.

HELD:

No. Asia Brewery Inc. did not commit infringement of trademark and unfair
competition against San Miguel Corporation. Infringement is assessed using the "test of
dominance" rather than the distinctions or variances between two trademarks' specifics.
A trademark is infringed upon if it: 1) has the primary, dominant, essential, or
distinguishing characteristics of another; and 2) is likely to cause confusion and deceit.

The phrases "SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN," which have ornate serifs at the start and
finish of the letters "S" and "M," are the dominating characteristic of SMC in the current
instance. However, the term "BEER PALE PILSEN" with the word "Beer" inscribed in
huge amber letters is the trademark's distinguishing characteristic. Along with the
difference in their primary feature, the rival items' exteriors also differ in a variety of
other ways, such as the neck, bottle cap, and label. Beer na Beer and San Miguel Pale
Pilsen cannot be claimed to be similarly confused due to the differences in their
prominent qualities, as well as in pronunciation, spelling, and look.
Del Monte Corporation Vs Court of Appeals

FACTS:

The American company that filed the petition, Del Monte, gave Philpack permission to
produce, sell, and distribute Del Monte catsup in the Philippines. In the Philippines, the
petitioner's "Del Monte" trademark, logo, and catsup bottle were subsequently
registered. In the meanwhile, the responder Sunshine Sauce, a business that makes and
sells several types of sauces, registered its logo, which reads "Sunshine Fruit Catsup."
Philpack learned that the responder was purchasing discarded Del Monte bottles at
trash shops and recycling them to use as containers for its own catsup. As a result, the
trial court rejected the case for trademark infringement and unfair competition that
petitioner and Philpack had brought. CA upheld its position that there were significant
discrepancies between the two marks.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is confusing similarity between the two trademarks.

HELD:

Although the Court is aware of these differences, it disagrees with the assertion that
there was no infringement or unfair competition. As a result, it has been decided that
the buyer must rely on his memory of the product's look while making purchases. The
buyer must depend on his recall of the petitioner's mark if he has in mind the
respondent's mark or label. Additionally, it has been ruled that in situations of
trademark infringement and unfair competition, courts should not attempt to educate
consumers but rather should assume that they would be negligent and keep in mind
that trademarks need not be identical. The use of equity will be justified by a perplexing
parallel.

At that point, it is not difficult to determine that the Sunshine label is a colorable replica
of the Del Monte trademark even if the labels were examined collectively. The word
“catsup” in both bottles is printed in white and the style of the print/letter is the same.
Although the logo of Sunshine is not a tomato, the figure nevertheless approximates
that of a tomato. The private respondent is not guilty of infringement since they utilized
the Del Monte bottle, which brings us to the second point. The stated bottle's
configuration was only included in the Supplemental Register, which explains why.

Berries Agricultural Co. Inc. vs Norvy Abyadang

FACTS:

Abyadang filed a trademark application with the IPO for the mark "NS D-10 PLUS" for
use in connection with Fungicide. Berris Agricultural Co., Inc. opposed the application
on the grounds that it is confusingly similar to their own name, "D-10 80 WP," which is
likewise used for fungicide and contains the same active component. Berries won in the
IPO decision, but Abyadang won when Abyadang appealed to the CA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is a confusing similarity between the trademarks

HELD:

Yes. The SC discovered that both items contain the chemical D-10 and that it dominates
both of their marks. By using the Dominancy Test, it can be shown that Abyadang and
Berris both sell products that are similar to one another, which increases the likelihood
of consumer misunderstanding. Additionally, the Holistic Test revealed that the
packaging and color schemes of the marks are more likely to cause misunderstanding.
According to the SC, consumers would believe that Abyadang's product is an
improvement over Berris'.
Francisco Joaquin vs Franklin Drilon

FACTS:

Rhoda and Me, a dating game program that ran from 1970 to 1977, was produced by
petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI). This company is the grantee of Certificate of
Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971.On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI filed an
update to its copyright certificate to the National Library detailing the structure and
presentational style of the performance. Following the petitioners' complaint,
information for PD No. 49 violation was filed against private respondent Zosa and a
few RPN 9 officials for broadcasting It's a Date. It was given to RTC Quezon City's
Branch 104.Before the Department of Justice, Zosa asked for a review of the Assistant
City Prosecutor's decision. Respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon
overturned the Assistant City Prosecutor's conclusions on August 12, 1992, and
instructed him to file a motion to dismiss the case against private respondents. Joaquin,
the petitioner, submitted a move for reconsideration, but it was rejected.

ISSUE:

Whether the format or mechanics or petitioner’s television show is entitled to copyright

protection.

HELD:

The Court decided that the show's format is not protected by copyright. The kinds of
works that are eligible for copyright protection are listed in Sec. 2 of PD No. 49, often
known as the Decree on Intellectual Property. The clause is almost identical to Section
172 of the Philippine Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293). The list of protected works
in Section 2 of PD No. 49 does not contain the structure or mechanics of a television
program. Being a legislative grant, the rights are only those that the legislation confers,
and they may only be attained and enjoyed in relation to the things and people and
under the circumstances laid forth in the statute. The Court holds that, since they
belong under the kind of works described in PD 49, audio-visual recordings of each
episode of Rhoda and Me are protected by petitioner BJPI's copyright. The dating game
show's format or overall idea is not protected by the copyright.