Facts:

In the case of Inchausti & Company vs. Song Fo & Company, the plaintiffs, Inchausti & Company, a general partnership operating a distillery known as "Destileria de Tanduay" in Manila, filed a suit against the defendants, Song Fo & Company, who also operated a distillery called "Destileria La Tondena" in the same city. The dispute arose over the alleged infringement of a trademark registered by the plaintiffs on October 6, 1903, for "anisados y alcoholes." The registered trademark, depicted in Exhibit A, featured a circular design with two concentric circles, a demijohn symbol at the center, and the word "Tanduay" prominently displayed. The defendants had been using a similar circular label since 1906, which bore a design closely resembling that of the plaintiffs, albeit with some differences in wording and color. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants' use of a similar trademark constituted an infringement an...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiffs: Inchausti & Company, a general partnership operating the "Destileria de Tanduay" distillery in Manila.
   • Defendants: Song Fo & Company, a general partnership operating the "Destileria La Tondena" distillery in Manila.

2. Trademark Registration:

   • On October 6, 1903, plaintiffs registered a trademark for "anisados y alcoholes" with the Philippine government. The trademark (Exhibit A) featured a circular design with two concentric circles, a demijohn symbol in the center, and the word "Tanduay" horizontally across the design.

3. Defendants' Use of Similar Trademark:

   • Since 1906, defendants used a circular label (Exhibits C, CC, CCC) with a design similar to plaintiffs' trademark. The defendants' label also featured two concentric circles, a demijohn symbol, and a horizontal design, though the wording and some details differed.

4. Legal Proceedings:

   • Plaintiffs sued under Act No. 666, seeking to enjoin defendants from using the trademark and claiming damages for its alleged illegal use.

5. Defendants' Arguments:

   • Defendants argued that the demijohn symbol, being a common item in the distilling trade, could not be exclusively claimed as a trademark. They also contended that the description in the registration did not fully match plaintiffs' trademark (Exhibit A).

6. Court's Findings on Trademark:

   • The court found that plaintiffs' trademark, as a whole, was valid and exclusive, despite the commonality of the demijohn symbol. The court emphasized that the combination of elements in the design made it distinctive.

7. Similarity of Trademarks:

   • The court noted that the defendants' labels were strikingly similar to plaintiffs' trademark, with only minor differences. The similarity was such that it could deceive ordinary purchasers.

8. Agreement on Damages:

   • The parties agreed that damages would be fixed at P1,000 for the purpose of the appeal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Trademark Validity:

   • A trademark is valid if it is distinctive as a whole, even if some of its components (e.g., the demijohn symbol) are common. The combination of elements can create a unique and protectable design.

2. Unfair Competition:

   • Unfair competition occurs when a party intentionally uses a design or appearance similar to another's product to deceive the public and defraud the competitor. The intent to deceive can be inferred from the similarity of the goods' appearance.

3. Deception of Ordinary Purchasers:

   • The test for unfair competition is whether the similarity in appearance is likely to deceive ordinary purchasers exercising ordinary care, not whether a careful or knowledgeable purchaser could distinguish the products.

4. Damages and Injunction:

   • In cases of unfair competition, the injured party is entitled to damages and an injunction to prevent further use of the deceptive design. The measure of damages can be agreed upon by the parties or determined by the court.