Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

3D

TANDUAY DISTILLERS,INC. VS. GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL, INC.


1. A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy Ior the protection oI substantive rights
and interest.
2. Its objective is to prevent a threatened or continuous irreparable injury to some oI the
parties beIore their claims can be thoroughly investigated and advisedly adjudicated.
3. It is resorted to only when there is a pressing need to avoid injurious consequences which
cannot be remedied under any standard compensation.
4. BeIore an injunctive writ is issued, it is essential that the Iollowing requisites are present:
(1) the existence oI a right to be protected and (2) the acts against which the injunction is
directed are violative oI the right.
5. The onus probandi is on the movant to show that the invasion oI the right sought to be
protected is material and substantial, that the right oI the movant is clear and
unmistakable, and that there is an urgent and paramount necessity Ior the writ to prevent
serious damage.

MANUEL C. ESPIRITU, JR., ET AL. VS. PETRON CORPORATION and DOLOIRAS
1. R.A. 623, as amended,
|
punishes any person who, without the written consent oI the
manuIacturer or seller oI gases contained in duly registered steel cylinders or tanks, Iills
the steel cylinder or tank, Ior the purpose oI sale, disposal or traIIicking, other than the
purpose Ior which the manuIacturer or seller registered the same.
2. Essentially, what the law punishes is the act oI giving one`s goods the general appearance
oI the goods oI another, which would likely mislead the buyer into believing that such
goods belong to the latter.
3. It has been held, that corporate oIIicers or employees, through whose act, deIault or
omission the corporation commits a crime, may themselves be individually held
answerable Ior the crime oI inIringement.
4. The crime oI trademark inIringement, Section 155 oI R.A. 8293 in relation to Section 170

provides that it is committed by any person who shall, without the consent oI the owner
oI the registered mark:Use in commerce any reproduction, counterIeit, copy or colorable
imitation oI a registered mark or the same container or a dominant Ieature thereoI in
connection with the sale, oIIering Ior sale, distribution, advertising oI any goods or
services including other preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale oI any goods or
services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause conIusion, or to cause
mistake, or to deceive; or
5. Reproduce, counterIeit, copy or colorably imitate a registered mark or a dominant Ieature
thereoI and apply such reproduction, counterIeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels,
signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in
commerce upon or in connection with the sale, oIIering Ior sale, distribution, or
advertising oI goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to
cause conIusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.

ARNEL U. TY, ET AL. VS. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL, PETRON
GASUL DEALERS ASSOCIATION, and TOTALGAZ DEALERS ASSOCIATION
1. The Court aIIirmed the presence oI inIringement involving the unauthorized
sale oI Gasul and Shellane LPG cylinders and the unauthorized reIilling oI the same by
Masagana Gas Corporation as duly attested to and witnessed by NBI agents who
conducted the surveillance and test-buys.
2. The Iact that Omni reIilled various branded LPG cylinders even iI owned by its
customers but without authority Irom brand owners Petron, Pilipinas Shell and Total
shows palpable violation oI BP 33, as amended.
3. BP 33, as amended, does not require ownership oI the branded LPG cylinders as
a condition sine qua non Ior the commission oI oIIenses involving petroleum and
petroleum products.
4. The oIIense oI reIilling a branded LPG cylinder without the written consent oI the brand
owner constitutes the oIIense regardless oI the buyer or possessor oI the branded LPG
cylinder.
5. The law does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person
against whom the search warrants is directed. Ownership, thereIore, is oI no
consequence, and it is suIIicient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has
control or possession oI the property sought to be seized.
JUNO BATISTIS VS. PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES
1. Several characteristics oI counterIeiting in this case are: (a) the Bureau oI Internal
Revenue (BIR) seal label attached to the conIiscated products did not reIlect the
word tunay when he Ilashed a black light against the BIR label; (b) the 'tamper evident
ring on the conIiscated item did not contain the word Fundador; and (c) the
wordFundador on the label was printed Ilat with sharper edges, unlike the raised, actually
embossed, and Iinely printed genuine Fundador trademark.
2. The buying public would be easy to Iall Ior the counterIeit products due to their having
been given the appearance oI the genuine products, particularly with the diIIiculty oI
detecting whether the products were Iake or real iI the buyers had no experience and the
tools Ior detection, like black light.
3. Fundador trademark by the colorable imitation oI it through applying the dominant
Ieatures oI the trademark on the Iake products, particularly the two bottles Iilled
with Fundador brandy.
4. Batistis exerted the eIIort to make the counterIeit products look genuine to deceive the
unwary public into regarding the products as genuine.
5. Batistis` acts constituted nfrngement of trademark as set Iorth in Section 155.

COFFEE PARTNERS, INC. VS. SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE ROASTERY, INC.
1. It ruled that the right to the exclusive use oI a trade name with Ireedom Irom
inIringement by similarity is determined Irom priority oI adoption.
2. The binding eIIect oI the Iactual Iindings oI the Court oI Appeals on this Court applies
with greater Iorce when both the quasi-judicial body or tribunal like the BLA-IPO and the
Court oI Appeals are in complete agreement on their Iactual Iindings.
3. It is also settled that absent any circumstance requiring the overturning oI the Iactual
conclusions made by the quasi-judicial body or tribunal, particularly iI aIIirmed by the
Court oI Appeals, the Court necessarily upholds such Iindings oI Iact
4. Clearly, a trade name need not be registered with the IPO beIore an inIringement suit
may be Iiled by its owner against the owner oI an inIringing trademark.
5. All that is required is that the trade name is previously used in trade or commerce in the
Philippines.
ARTHUR DEL ROSARIO AND ALEXANDER DEL ROSARIO VS. HELLENOR D.
DONATO, JR. RAFAEL V. GONZAGA
1. The proceeding under Rule 126, a limited criminal one, does not provide Ior the Iiling oI
counterclaims Ior damages against those who may have improperly sought the issuance
oI the search warrant.
2. The test oI suIIiciency oI a complaint is whether or not, assuming the truth oI the Iacts
that plaintiII alleges in it, the court can render judgment granting him the judicial
assistance he seeks
3. The judgment would be right only iI the Iacts he alleges constitute a cause oI action that
consists oI three elements: (1) the plaintiII`s legal right in the matter; (2) the deIendant`s
corresponding obligation to honor or respect such right; and (3) the deIendant`s
subsequent violation oI the right
4. A judicially ordered search that Iails to yield the described illicit article does not oI itselI
render the court`s order 'unlawIul.
5. Further, the allegation that the search warrant in this case was served in a malicious
manner is also not suIIicient.

SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A. VS. ABAD, AND MENDOZA, . MARTIN T. DY, JR

1. Among the elements, the element oI likelihood oI conIusion is the gravamen oI
trademark inIringement.
2. There are two types oI conIusion in trademark inIringement: conIusion oI goods and
conIusion oI business.
3. The Iirst is the conIusion oI goods 'in which event the ordinarily prudent purchaser
would be induced to purchase one product in the belieI that he was purchasing the
other. In which case, 'deIendant`s goods are then bought as the plaintiII`s, and the
poorer quality oI the Iormer reIlects adversely on the plaintiII`s reputation.
4. The other is the .onfuson of busness: 'Here though the goods oI the parties are diIIerent,
the deIendant`s product is such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the
plaintiII, and the public would then be deceived either into that belieI or into the belieI
that there is some connection between the plaintiII and deIendant which, in Iact, does not
exist.
5. There are two tests to determine likelihood oI conIusion: the dominancy test and holistic
test.

DERMALINE, INC. VS. MYRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
1. A trademark is any distinctive word, name, symbol, emblem, sign, or device, or any
combination thereoI, adopted and used by a manuIacturer or merchant on his goods to
identiIy and distinguish them Irom those manuIactured, sold, or dealt by others.
2. It is an intellectual property deserving protection by law. In trademark controversies,
each case must be scrutinized according to its peculiar circumstances, such that
jurisprudential precedents should only be made to apply iI they are speciIically in point.
3. The Dominancy Test Iocuses on the similarity oI the prevalent Ieatures oI the competing
trademarks that might cause conIusion or deception.
4. On the other hand, the Holistic Test entails a consideration oI the entirety oI the marks as
applied to the products, including labels and packaging, in determining conIusing
similarity.
5. When one applies Ior the registration oI a trademark or label which is almost the same or
that very closely resembles one already used and registered by another, the application
should be rejected and dismissed outright, even without any opposition on the part oI the
owner and user oI a previously registered label or trademark.
SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC. VS. INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP.
1. Applying the Dominancy Test to the case at bar, this Court Iinds that the use oI the
stylized 'S by respondent in its Strong rubber shoes inIringes on the mark already
registered by petitioner with the IPO.
2. Indeed, the registered trademark owner may use its mark on the same or similar products,
in diIIerent segments oI the market, and at diIIerent price levels depending on variations
oI the products Ior speciIic segments oI the market.
3. The purchasing public might be mistaken in thinking that petitioner had ventured into a
lower market segment such that it is not inconceivable Ior the public to think that Strong
or Strong Sport Trail might be associated or connected with petitioner`s brand, which
scenario is plausible especially since both petitioner and respondent manuIacture rubber
shoes.
4. With all the protection oI trademarks, as intellectual property is intended not only to
preserve the goodwill and reputation oI the business established on the goods bearing the
mark through actual use over a period oI time, but also to saIeguard the public as
consumers against conIusion on these goods.
5. The most successIul Iorm oI copying is to employ enough points oI similarity to conIuse
the public, with enough points oI diIIerence to conIuse the courts.

Оценить