Case Digest (G.R. No. 10619)
Facts:
Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Company, G.R. No. 10619, February 10, 1916, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court.In the main action filed in the Court of First Instance, Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas (plaintiff) sued Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Company (defendant) for appropriation of the trade-name "Isabela" and for unfair competition, seeking damages and a perpetual injunction restraining defendant from using that name or any confusingly similar designation. The trial court held that the plaintiff had appropriated and was entitled to exclusive use of the word "Isabela" as a trade-mark for cigarettes, found that defendant's use of "Alhambra Isabelas" violated that right, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from using "Isabelas" or any confusingly similar name as a distinguishing brand for its cigarettes.
Defendant appealed the main judgment to this Court and moved in the trial court, then before this Court, to suspend the injunction pending appeal; both motions were denied. Despite the injunction, defendant continued to use "Alhambra Isabelas"; plaintiff initiated a contempt proceeding in the trial court, which found defendant guilty and imposed a P500 fine with costs.
After that penalty, defendant altered its labeling to read "Alhambra Isabela" (changing the plural to singular) and added "Blue Ribbon Cigarrillos" on the package backs. Plaintiff commenced a second contempt proceeding in the Court of First Instance alleging continued violation of the injunction. Following a hearing the trial court again found defendant guilty and imposed a fine of P1,000. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting (1) the alleged indefiniteness of the injunction, (2) the voidness o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the permanent injunction so indefinite and uncertain as to be unenforceable?
- Was the injunction void because the judgment on which it was based was not responsive to the pleadings or evidence and therefore lacked support in the record?
- Did the trial court err in punishing defendant for contempt and imposing a fine after an appeal had been taken fro...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)