ETHICS Halle Herrera

Seatwork November 28, 2023

Asia Brewery vs Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corp

Facts of the Case

The case of Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corporation (G.R. No.
103543) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on trademark
infringement and unfair competition. The case involved two competing beer brands: San
Miguel Pale Pilsen, produced by San Miguel Corporation (SMC), and Beer Pale Pilsen, also
known as Beer na Beer, produced by Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI).

In 1988, SMC filed a complaint against ABI alleging that ABI's Beer na Beer infringed on
SMC's trademark for San Miguel Pale Pilsen. SMC argued that the two trademarks were
confusingly similar in terms of their overall appearance, particularly the use of the words
"beer" and "pale pilsen." ABI, on the other hand, contended that the two trademarks were
sufficiently distinct and that there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers.

The trial court ruled in favor of SMC, finding that ABI's Beer na Beer infringed on SMC's
trademark. However, ABI appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed
the trial court's ruling. SMC then appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme
Court.

In 1993, the Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of ABI. The Court held that there was
no likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks because they were not confusingly
similar in terms of their dominant features. The Court noted that the word "beer" is a
generic term for alcoholic beverages and that the words "pale pilsen" are commonly used
to describe a type of beer. The Court also found that the overall appearance of the two
trademarks was not sufficiently similar to cause confusion among consumers.

The Supreme Court's decision in Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and San Miguel
Corporation is an important precedent for trademark infringement and unfair competition
cases in the Philippines. The case established that the test for trademark infringement is
whether there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the source of the goods
or services. The case also clarified that the use of generic terms and common descriptive
names does not automatically constitute trademark infringement.

Summary

Case Name: G.R. No. 103543

Parties:

● Petitioner: Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI)

● Respondents: Court of Appeals and San Miguel Corporation (SMC)

Facts:

● ABI manufactures and sells a beer product called "BEER PALE PILSEN" or "BEER NA
BEER."
● SMC manufactures and sells a beer product called "SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN."
● SMC filed a complaint against ABI for trademark infringement and unfair
competition, alleging that ABI's "BEER PALE PILSEN" trademark is confusingly
similar to its own "SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN" trademark.

Issue: Whether ABI's "BEER PALE PILSEN" trademark is confusingly similar to SMC's "SAN
MIGUEL PALE PILSEN" trademark.

Ruling: The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in favor of ABI, holding that its "BEER
PALE PILSEN" trademark is not confusingly similar to SMC's "SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN"
trademark. The Court found that the dominant features of the two trademarks are not
similar, and that there is no likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Key Points:

● The test for trademark infringement is whether the marks are confusingly similar.
● The dominant features of the marks are the most important factors in determining
confusing similarity.
● Likelihood of confusion is determined by considering factors such as the similarity of
the marks, the similarity of the products, the similarity of the channels of trade, and
the strength of the marks.
Findings of the Supreme Court

To determine whether trademark infringement has occurred, courts focus on the overall
similarity of the trademarks, rather than minor differences. If the main or essential features
of one trademark are similar to those of another, and there is a likelihood that consumers
will be confused, then infringement has occurred. It is not necessary for the infringing
trademark to be an exact copy of the original, nor is it necessary for there to be an intent
to deceive. The key question is whether the use of the trademarks is likely to lead to
consumer confusion. Which was done through “the test of dominancy.”

Some of the Supreme Court’s FIndings were:

(1) The back of ABI's bottle features a large, eye-catching slogan, "BEER NA BEER,"
printed below a row of flower buds and leaves. In contrast, SMC's bottle does not
display any slogan.

(2) The manufacturers’ names are prominently displayed on their particular bottle.

“Bottled by the San Miguel Brewery, Philippines” on the SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN
and “Especially brewed and bottled by Asia Brewery Incorporated, Philippines” in
the BEER PALE PILSEN.