Question: This relates to the use of competing trademarks .
Suppose in a sponsored sporting event, e. g. FIBA, if the event is sponsored by Brand A, and a non-sponsor brand gives out tickes to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure, what is your stand?
The fundamental law on trademark, infringement, and unfair competition is Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293. Section 155 of R.A. No. 8293 provides for the remedies for the infringement which is committed by any person who shall, without the consent of the owner of the registered mark use in commerce by advertising any goods or services including other preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive any person.
The act of advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive is subject to civil damages for such act by any person when such infringement is committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or services using the infringing goods or service.
The substantial element of infringement under R.A. No. 8293 is that the trademark is likely to cause confusion. In determining whether it is analogous and its likelihood of confusion, the Supreme Court uses the Dominancy Test and the Holistic or Totality Test.
The Dominancy Test places significance on the similarity of the prevalent or dominant features of the competing trademarks which causes confusion, mistake, and deception in the mind of the purchasing public.
Duplication or imitation need not be proven. There is no need also that the trademark is a registered trademark. As long as there is a suggestion or an effort to imitate.
What is given emphasis is the aural and visual impressions of the trade marks on the buyers of goods. Prices, quality, sales outlets, and market segments are not important.
The Holistic or Totality Test focuses on the entirety of the trademarks in relation to the product, its label and packaging to determine the confusing similarity.
What is focused is that which is not only on the predominant words, it also includes on other features appearing on both labels so that the public draw such conclusion on whether such trademark is confusingly similar to the other.
There are two types of confusion:
Confusion of goods (product confusion).
This happens when the ordinarily prudent purchaser is induced to purchase one product in the belief that he was purchasing the other; and
Confusion of business (source or origin confusion).
This happens when although the goods of the parties are different, the product, the mark of which registration is applied for by one party, is such as might reasonably be assumed to originate with the registrant of an earlier product, and the public would then be deceived either into that belief or into the belief that there is some connection between the two parties, though inexistent.
In the Holistic or Totality Test, the non-sponsoring brand infringes on BrandA. Even if the non-sponsoring Brand did not imitate Brand A, the fact that FIBA was sponsored by Brand A, the public is made to believe that the non-sponsoring brand and Brand A are of the same source and that the public may tend to believe that both brands are sponsoring the same sporting event as not all men in their right minds would bother to ask what brand is sponsoring such event.
Thus, the act of the non-sponsor brand giving out tickes to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure already constitutes infringement under the Holistic or Totality Test.
The likelihood of confusion is that the attending public in FIBA will associate the Brand A with the non-sponsoring brand .
In applying the Holistic Test, there might be dissimilarities between the appearances of Brand A and the non-sponsoring brand but such dissimilarities do not outweigh the blatant act of the non-sponsor brand giving out tickes to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure.
In applying the holistic test, although there was no act of imitating Brand A by the non-sponsoring brand , the dissimilarities between Brand A and the non-sponsoring brand are not significant that such dissimilarity will cause confusion and mistake in the eyes of the public.
It is the act of giving out tickes to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure, such act constitutes infringement.
In Converse Rubber Corporation v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., Inc., in a case for unfair competition, even if not all the details are identical, as long as the general appearance of the two products are such that any ordinary purchaser would be deceived, the imitator should be liable.
The act of the non-sponsor brand giving out tickes to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure deceives any ordinary person that Brand A and non-sponsoring brand come from the same source as the fact that FIBA was sponsored by Brand A.
This is more than sufficient to serve as basis for unfair competition.
Even if Brand A and the non-sponsoring brand were not identical, the act of the non-sponsor brand giving out tickes to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure, any ordinary or the not too perceptive and discriminating customer could be deceived, and, therefore, and could easily be passed off for as Brand A.
The non-sponsoring brand is guilty of unfair competition.
Section 23 of R.A. No. 166 provides that any person entitled to the exclusive use of a registered mark or trade name may recover damages in a civil action from any person who infringes his rights, and the measure of the damages suffered shall be either the reasonable profit which the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not infringed his said rights or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the infringement, or in the event such measure of damages cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty the court may award as damages reasonable percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant or the value of the services in connection with which the mark or trade name was used in the infringement of the rights of the complaining party.
In cases where actual intent to mislead the public or to defraud the complaining party shall be shown, in the discretion of the court, the damages may be doubled.
The complaining party, upon proper showing may also be granted injunction.
In McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger. Inc., the Court stated that modern law recognizes that the protection to which the owner of a trademark is entitled is not limited to guarding his goods or business from actual market competition with identical or similar products of the parties, but extends to all cases in which the use by a junior appropriator of a trade-mark or trade-name is likely to lead to a confusion of source, as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that the complaining party has extended his business into the field or is in any way connected with the activities of the infringer; or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of his business.
The act of the non-sponsor brand giving out tickes to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure leads to a confusion of source, as where prospective purchasers would be misled into thinking that Brand A has extended his business into the field or is in any way connected with the activities of the non-sponsoring brand; or when it forestalls the normal potential expansion of the business of the non-sponsoring brand.
The purchasing public might commit a mistake that Brand A is associated or connected with the non-sponsoring brand.
The purpose of protecting the trademarks as intellectual property is to preserve the goodwill and reputation of the business established on the goods bearing the mark through actual use over a period of time, but also to safeguard the public as consumers against confusion on these goods.
The Supreme Court held in the case of SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC., vs. INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP. : The most successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public, with enough points of difference to confuse the courts.
In SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., vs. KUNNAN ENTERPRISES LTD. AND SPORTS CONCEPT & DISTRIBUTOR, INC., the Court held that to establish trademark infringement, the following elements must be proven:
(1) the validity of plaintiff’s mark;
(2) the plaintiff’s ownership of the mark; and
(3) the use of the mark or its colorable imitation by the alleged infringer results in "likelihood of confusion.”
The similarity and resemblance or lack of the same between Brand A and the non-sponsoring brand can be best appreciated by examining the same as they appear in the sporting event.
Unfair competition is the passing off (or palming off) or attempting to pass off upon the public of the goods or business of one person as the goods or business of another with the end and probable effect of deceiving the public.
The essential elements of unfair competition are:
(1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods; and
(2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor.
The "true test" of unfair competition is whether the acts of the defendant have the intent of deceiving or are calculated to deceive the ordinary buyer making his purchases under the ordinary conditions of the particular trade to which the controversy relates.
One of the essential requisites in an action to restrain unfair competition is proof of fraud; the intent to deceive, actual or probable must be shown before the right to recover can exist.
The act of the non-sponsor brand in giving out tickets to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure constitutes unfair competition because such act of the non-sponsoring brand has the intent of deceiving or is calculated to deceive the public under the ordinary conditions of the particular trade to which the controversy relates.
One of the essential requisites in an action to restrain unfair competition is proof of fraud; the intent to deceive, actual or probable must be shown before the right to recover can exist.
In this case the proof of fraud or the intent to deceive by the non-sponsoring brand is actual and is shown, hence there is a right to recover damages by Brand A.
In United States vs. Manuel (7 Phil. Rep., 221), the Court held that the true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care, and not whether a certain limited class of purchasers with special knowledge not possessed by the ordinary purchaser could avoid mistake by the exercise of this special knowledge.
The act of the non-sponsor brand in giving out tickets to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure constitutes unfair competition because such act of the non-sponsoring brand hasbeen clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care, and not whether a certain limited class of purchasers with special knowledge not possessed by the ordinary purchaser could avoid mistake by the exercise of this special knowledge, that Brand A and the non-sponsoring brand comes from the same source.
In Alhambra Cigar, etc., Co. vs. Mojica (27 Phil. Rep., 266) the Court stated that even if the resemblance is accidental and not intentional, plaintiff is entitled to protection against its injurious results to his trade.
If the act of the non-sponsor brand in giving out tickets to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure, Brand A is entitled to protection against the injurious results to his trade as a consequence of the act of the non-sponsor brand.
In the case of R. F. & J. ALEXANDER & CO., LTD., and KER & CO., LTD. vs. SY BOK, the Court stated that in unfair competition, while the requisite degree of resemblance or similarity between the names, brands, or other indicia is not capable of exact definition, it may be stated generally that the similarity must be such, but need only be such, as is likely to mislead purchasers of ordinary caution and prudence, or in other words, the ordinary buyer, into the belief that the goods or wares are those, or that the name or business is that, of another producer or tradesman.
It is not necessary in either case that the resemblance be sufficient to deceive experts, dealers, or other persons specially familiar with the trademark or goods involved. Nor is it material that a critical inspection and comparison would disclose differences, or that persons seeing the trademarks or articles side by side would not be deceived.
The act of the non-sponsor brand in giving out tickets to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure constitutes unfair competition because such act of the non-sponsoring brand is likely to mislead purchasers of ordinary caution and prudence, or in other words, the ordinary buyer, into the belief that the non-sponsoring brand are those, or that the name or business is that, of Brand A.
It is not necessary in either case that the resemblance be sufficient to deceive experts, dealers, or other persons specially familiar with the trademark or goods involved. Nor is it material that a critical inspection and comparison would disclose differences, or that persons seeing the trademarks or articles side by side would not be deceived.
In the case of ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO vs. PEDRO N. MOJICA, the Court held that unfair competition consists in passing off or attempting to pass off upon the public the goods or business of one person as and for the goods or business of another.
It consists essentially in the conduct of a trade or business in such a manner that there is either an express or implied representation to that effect.
It may be stated broadly that any conduct the end and probable effect of which is to deceive the public or pass off the goods or business of one person as and for that of another, constitutes actionable unfair competition.
Unfair competition, as thus defined, is a legal wrong for which the courts afford a remedy. It is a tort and a fraud.
The basic principle is that no one has a right to dress up his goods or otherwise represent them in such a manner as to deceive an intending purchaser and induce him to believe he is buying the goods of another.
Protection against unfair competition is not intended to create or foster a monopoly and the court should always be careful not to interfere with free and fair competition, but should confine itself, rather, to preventing fraud and imposition resulting from some real resemblance in made or dress of goods.
Nothing less than conduct tending to pass off one man's goods or business as that of another will constitute unfair competition.
The act of the non-sponsor brand in giving out tickets to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure constitutes as passing off or attempting to pass off upon the public the goods or business of Brand A.
There is actual or probable deception and confusion suffered by the public in Brand A by the act of the non-sponsoring brand in the act of giving out tickets to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure of the non-sponsoring brand.
Relief against unfair competition is properly afforded upon the ground that one who has built up a good will and reputation for his goods or business is entitled to all the benefits therefrom.
Such good will is property and, like other property, is protected against invasion.
Deception of the public injures the proprietor of the business by diverting his customers and depriving him of sales which he otherwise would have made.
A demand for goods created belongs to the advertiser and he will be protected therein against unfair competition by another who seeks in any way to take advantage of such advertisements to sell his own goods.
In order to make it a case of unfair competition it is not necessary to show that any person has been actually deceived by the non-sponsoring brand’s conduct and lead to purchase his goods in the belief that they are the goods of Brand A, or to deal with the non-sponsoring brand thinking that he was dealing with Brand A.
It is sufficient and it showed that there was deception which is the natural and probable result of the act of the non-sponsoring brand.
There is actual or probable deception and confusion which is shown, and there is probability of deception. Thus, there is unfair competition.
Purchasers may be deceived and misled into purchasing the goods of one person under the belief that they are purchasing the goods of another person whose goods they intended to buy although they do not know who is the actual proprietor of the genuine goods.
The purchasers of the non-sponsoring brand may be deceived and misled into purchasing the goods of one person under the belief that they are purchasing the goods of Brand A whose goods they intended to buy although they do not know who is the actual proprietor of the genuine goods.
They are so deceived when they have in mind to purchased goods coming from a definite, although unknown, with which goods they are acquainted, although they neither know nor care who is the actual proprietor of such goods. the ultimate purchaser is the one in view and it is sufficient if he is liable to be deceived.
The non-sponsoring brand, by his conduct, passing off his own goods at the same time with Brand A which is the sponsor in that sporting event which tend to deceive the public that these brands come from the same source.
The public is deceived.
A fraudulent intent on the part of the non-sponsoring brnd to pass off his goods or business as or for that of Brand A constitutes unfair competition.
An actual fraudulent intent need not be shown where the necessary and probable tendency of the non-sponsoring brand’s conduct is to deceive the public and pass off his goods or business as and for that of Brand
Even if the resemblance is accidental and not intentional, Brand Ais entitled to protection against its injurious results to his trade.
In the case of SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A., vs. MARTIN T. DY, JR., the Court cited the case of Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, the Court held that, "Non-competing goods may be those which, though they are not in actual competition, are so related to each other that it can reasonably be assumed that they originate from one manufacturer, in which case, confusion of business can arise out of the use of similar marks."
In that case, the Court enumerated factors in determining whether goods are related:
(1) classification of the goods;
(2) nature of the goods;
(3) descriptive properties, physical attributes or essential characteristics of the goods, with reference to their form, composition, texture or quality; and
(4) style of distribution and marketing of the goods, including how the goods are displayed and sold.
The act of the non-sponsor brand in giving out tickets to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure can reasonably be assumed that the non-sponoring brand and Brand A originate from one manufacturer, in which case, confusion of business can arise out of the such sporting event.
In the case of MIGHTY CORPORATION and LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACO, INC., vs. E. & J. GALLO WINERY and THE ANDRESONS GROUP, INC., the Court held that a person shall not be permitted to misrepresent his goods or his business as the goods or business of another, the law on unfair competition is broader and more inclusive than the law on trademark infringement. The latter is more limited but it recognizes a more exclusive right derived from the trademark adoption and registration by the person whose goods or business is first associated with it.
Hence, even if one fails to establish his exclusive property right to a trademark, he may still obtain relief on the ground of his competitor’s unfairness or fraud. Conduct constitutes unfair competition if the effect is to pass off on the public the goods of one man as the goods of another. It is not necessary that any particular means should be used to this end.
The act of the non-sponsor brand in giving out tickets to such event, with the recipients of such tickets are expected to wear the brand (trademark or tradename ) for brand exposure constitutes unfair competition, in which case, Brand A can obtain relief on the ground of his competitor’s unfairness or fraud. The conduct of the non-sponsoring brand constitutes unfair competition because it has the effect as to pass off on the public the goods of Brand A as the goods of the non-sponsoring brand. It is not necessary that any particular means should be used to this end.
In Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, the Court distinguishes trademark infringement from unfair competition:
(1) Infringement of trademark is the unauthorized use of a trademark, whereas unfair competition is the passing off of one's goods as those of another.
(2) In infringement of trademark fraudulent intent is unnecessary, whereas in unfair competition fraudulent intent is essential.
(3) In infringement of trademark the prior registration of the trademark is a prerequisite to the action, whereas in unfair competition registration is not necessary.
In Article 6bis of the Paris Convention, the following are the elements of trademark infringement:
(a) registration or use by another person of a trademark which is a reproduction, imitation or translation liable to create confusion,
(b) of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use48 to be well-known in that country and is already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of the Paris Convention, and
(c) such trademark is used for identical or similar goods.
Section 22 of the Trademark Law holds a person liable for infringement when, among others, he "uses without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or tradename in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such mark or tradename and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services."49 Trademark registration and actual use are material to the complaining party’s cause of action.
Under Sections 2, 2-A, 9-A, 20 and 22 of the Trademark Law , the following constitute the elements of trademark infringement:
(a) a trademark actually used in commerce in the Philippines and registered in the principal register of the Philippine Patent Office
(b) is used by another person in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or such trademark is reproduced, counterfeited, copied or colorably imitated by another person and such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation is applied to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services as to likely cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers,
(c) the trademark is used for identical or similar goods, and
(d) such act is done without the consent of the trademark registrant or assignee.
In summary, the Paris Convention protects well-known trademarks only (to be determined by domestic authorities), while the Trademark Law protects all trademarks, whether well-known or not, provided that they have been registered and are in actual commercial use in the Philippines.
Following universal acquiescence and comity, in case of domestic legal disputes on any conflicting provisions between the Paris Convention (which is an international agreement) and the Trademark law (which is a municipal law) the latter will prevail.54
Under both the Paris Convention and the Trademark Law, the protection of a registered trademark is limited only to goods identical or similar to those in respect of which such trademark is registered and only when there is likelihood of confusion. Under both laws, the time element in commencing infringement cases is material in ascertaining the registrant’s express or implied consent to another’s use of its trademark or a colorable imitation thereof. This is why acquiescence, estoppel or laches may defeat the registrant’s otherwise valid cause of action.
Hence, proof of all the elements of trademark infringement is a condition precedent to any finding of liability.
The actual use in commerce or business is a prerequisite in the acquisition of the right of ownership over a trademark.
Section 20 of the Trademark Law and Article 6bis of the Paris Convention which proscribe trademark infringement not only of goods specified in the certificate of registration but also of identical or similar goods, we have also uniformly recognized and applied the modern concept of "related goods."91
Simply stated, when goods are so related that the public may be, or is actually, deceived and misled that they come from the same maker or manufacturer, trademark infringement occurs.92
Non-competing goods may be those which, though they are not in actual competition, are so related to each other that it can reasonably be assumed that they originate from one manufacturer, in which case, confusion of business can arise out of the use of similar marks.93 They may also be those which, being entirely unrelated, cannot be assumed to have a common source; hence, there is no confusion of business, even though similar marks are used.94 Thus, there is no trademark infringement if the public does not expect the plaintiff to make or sell the same class of goods as those made or sold by the defendant.95
In resolving whether goods are related,96 several factors come into play:
(a) the business (and its location) to which the goods belong
(b) the class of product to which the goods belong
(c) the product's quality, quantity, or size, including the nature of the package, wrapper or container 97
(d) the nature and cost of the articles98
(e) the descriptive properties, physical attributes or essential characteristics with reference to their form, composition, texture or quality
(f) the purpose of the goods99
(g) whether the article is bought for immediate consumption,100 that is, day-to-day household items101
(h) the fields of manufacture102
(i) the conditions under which the article is usually purchased103 and
(j) the channels of trade through which the goods flow,104 how they are distributed, marketed, displayed and sold.105
Whether there exists a likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily prudent purchasers will be misled, or simply confused, as to the source of the goods in question.108 The "purchaser" is not the "completely unwary consumer" but is the "ordinarily intelligent buyer" considering the type of product involved.109 He is "accustomed to buy, and therefore to some extent familiar with, the goods in question.
The test of fraudulent simulation is to be found in the likelihood of the deception of some persons in some measure acquainted with an established design and desirous of purchasing the commodity with which that design has been associated. The test is not found in the deception, or the possibility of deception, of the person who knows nothing about the design which has been counterfeited, and who must be indifferent between that and the other. The simulation, in order to be objectionable, must be such as appears likely to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer who has a need to supply and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase."
ENDNOTE REFERNCES:
SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC., Petitioner, vs. INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP., and/or INTER PACIFIC TRADING CORP. and/or STRONG SPORTS GEAR CO., LTD., and/or STRONGSHOES WAREHOUSE and/or STRONG FASHION SHOES TRADING and/or TAN TUAN HONG and/or VIOLETA T. MAGAYAGA and/or JEFFREY R. MORALES and/or any of its other proprietor/s, directors, officers, employees and/or occupants of its premises located at S-7, Ed & Joe's Commercial Arcade, No. 153 Quirino Avenue, Parañaque City, Respondents.
TRENDWORKS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Petitioner-Intervenor, vs. INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP. and/or INTER PACIFIC TRADING CORP. and/or STRONG SPORTS GEAR CO., LTD., and/or STRONGSHOES WAREHOUSE and/or STRONG FASHION SHOES TRADING and/or TAN TUAN HONG and/or VIOLETA T. MAGAYAGA and/or JEFFREY R. MORALES and/or any of its other proprietor/s, directors, officers, employees and/or occupants of its premises located at S-7, Ed & Joe's Commercial Arcade, No. 153 Quirino Avenue, Parañaque City, Respondents.
Converse Rubber Corporation v. Jacinto Rubber & Plastic Co., Inc.
Section 23 of R.A. No. 166 provides:
Sec. 23. Actions and damages and injunction for infringement. — Any person entitled to the exclusive use of a registered mark or trade name may recover damages in a civil action from any person who infringes his rights, and the measure of the damages suffered shall be either the reasonable profit which the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not infringed his said rights or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the infringement, or in the event such measure of damages cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty the court may award as damages reasonable percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant or the value of the services in connection with which the mark or trade name was used in the infringement of the rights of the complaining party. In cases where actual intent to mislead the public or to defraud the complaining party shall be shown, in the discretion of the court, the damages may be doubled.
The complaining party, upon proper showing may also be granted injunction.
McDonald’s Corporation v. L.C. Big Mak Burger. Inc.,
G.R. No. 169974 April 20, 2010
SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner, vs. KUNNAN ENTERPRISES LTD. AND SPORTS CONCEPT & DISTRIBUTOR, INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. L-10738 January 14, 1916
RUEDA HERMANOS & CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. FELIX PAGLINAWAN & CO., defendant-appellant.
United States vs. Manuel (7 Phil. Rep., 221),
Alhambra Cigar, etc., Co. vs. Mojica (27 Phil. Rep., 266)
G.R. No. L-6707 May 31, 1955
R. F. & J. ALEXANDER & CO., LTD., and KER & Co., LTD., petitioner, vs. JOSE ANG, doing business under the name and style of "Hua Hing Trading", respondent.
G.R. No. L-6708 May 31, 1955
R. F. & J. ALEXANDER & CO., LTD., and KER & CO., LTD. petitioners vs.
SY BOK, doing business under the name and style of "China Rose", respondent.
52 American Jurisprudence pp. 600-601
G.R. No. L-8937 March 21, 1914
ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO., plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO N. MOJICA, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. 172276 August 8, 2010
SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE, S.A., Petitioner, vs. MARTIN T. DY, JR., Respondent.
Mighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo Winery
G.R. No. 154342 July 14, 2004
MIGHTY CORPORATION and LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACO, INC., petitioner, vs. E. & J. GALLO WINERY and THE ANDRESONS GROUP, INC., respondent
Section 22 of the Trademark Law holds a person liable for infringement when, among others, he "uses without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or tradename in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods, business or services or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business; or reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such mark or tradename and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such goods, business or services."49 Trademark registration and actual use are material to the complaining party’s cause of action.
