Case Digest (G.R. No. 154342)
Facts:
Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica de Tabaco, Inc., G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004, Supreme Court Third Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners sought review under Rule 45 of the Court of Appeals' November 15, 2001 decision in CA‑G.R. CV No. 65175 (and the CA resolution of July 11, 2002 denying reconsideration), which affirmed the Makati Regional Trial Court (Branch 57) November 26, 1998 decision (as modified by its June 24, 1999 order) finding petitioners liable for trademark infringement and unfair competition and awarding damages to respondents.Respondent E. & J. Gallo Winery (a California corporation not doing business in the Philippines) alleges ownership of the registered GALLO and ERNEST & JULIO GALLO wine trademarks; respondent The Andresons Group, Inc. is Gallo Winery’s exclusive Philippine importer and distributor since 1991. Petitioners (and predecessor Tobacco Industries) used the GALLO mark for cigarettes in the Philippines since 1973; Tobacco Industries assigned the mark to La Campana in 1984 and Mighty later manufactured and sold GALLO cigarettes under license. Gallo’s GALLO wine mark was registered in the Philippines in 1971, but respondents admitted commercial sales in the Philippines only after 1974 (initially within U.S. military facilities) and more broadly by 1979; documentary sales proof in the record dates to 1981.
Respondents filed suit in Makati RTC on March 12, 1993 for trademark and tradename infringement and unfair competition (invoking the Paris Convention and Republic Act No. 166), seeking injunctive relief and damages. The Makati RTC denied a preliminary injunction (April 21, 1993); the Court of Appeals affirmed that denial (Feb. 20, 1995). After trial on the merits, the Makati RTC on November 26, 1998 found petitioners liable, permanently enjoined their use of GALLO on cigarettes, and awarded damages; the court increased actual damages by order of June...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court properly give due course to a Rule 45 petition that requires review of factual findings intertwined with questions of law?
- Was the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293) applicable to alleged acts occurring before its effective date?
- Did petitioners’ use of the GALLO mark on cigarettes constitute trademark infringement of respondents’ GALLO wine mark (i.e., were the marks/goods identical, similar or related so as to create likelihood of confusion)?
- Were petitioners liable for unfair competition and damage...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)