G.R. No. 9458 - People vs Kyburz

The United States, acting as plaintiff and appellee, brought the case against J. Kyburz, the defendant and appellant.
The offense charged was based on section 6 of Act No. 666 of the Philippine Commission, which penalizes the fraudulent use of trade-marks and trade names.
The statute prescribes a penalty that may include a fine or imprisonment for any person who, with intent to defraud the public or the owner of a trade name, uses another’s trade-mark or trade name in connection with goods offered for sale.

Greilsammer Hermanos, a well-organized partnership in the Manila jewelry business, had been importing a certain class of watches since 1903.

After careful inspection, they engraved a trademark—a sphere with a scroll bearing the word "Meridian"—on the watches.
These watches were subsequently marketed and sold as Meridian watches, and the trademark was duly registered around December 1908.

J. Kyburz, proprietor of two retail jewelry stores in Manila, managed one store personally (Manila Jewelry Store) while delegating supervision in the other (El Zenith).
During the period from the 4th to the 22d of September, 1913, Kyburz’s Manila Jewelry Store displayed watches accompanied by a show card reading:

Ten jewels. 20 years guaranty. At P13.50. Before P16.50.”

The watches sold by Kyburz were obtained from the same European manufacturer as those bought by Greilsammer Hermanos.
The watches were of identical quality and design, and seemingly originated from one common stock maintained by the manufacturer.

Evidence showed that the defendant, through his active supervision of the Manila Jewelry Store, was aware of and possibly participated in the misrepresentation:

A clerk in the store sold a watch and issued a written guaranty, which described the watch (erroneously) as a Meridian watch.
The guaranty contained the signatures of both the clerk and Kyburz, the latter having signed it in blank, leaving completion to the clerk’s discretion at the time of sale.

Both the branch manager and Kyburz acknowledged that they were aware of the presence and origin of the Meridian watches.
Kyburz went as far as informing prospective buyers that he had the same watch model without the “Meridian” mark when asked for one.

The trial record reflects that although the defendant and his clerk denied explicit instruction to misrepresent, the overall evidence implied that the conduct was performed with the knowledge, consent, or at least the implied authorization of Kyburz.

The defendant was accused of using the trade name “Meridian” in a manner that led consumers to believe they were purchasing genuine Meridian watches as established by Greilsammer Hermanos.
Such use was seen as an attempt to benefit from the established reputation and quality guarantee associated with the trade name.

The statutory scheme not only sought to protect the owner of a trade name from unfair competition but also the public interest in being accurately informed about the origin and quality of goods.

Whether J. Kyburz can be held criminally responsible for the acts committed by his employees in the Manila Jewelry Store under the doctrine of master-servant liability.
Whether the testimony of the clerk and the actions of the branch manager, which were tied to the sale of the watches under the Meridian designation, suffice to establish that the defendant either directed, consented to, or in any manner authorized the fraudulent act.

Whether the defendant’s use of the trade name “Meridian” on advertisements and other sales documents—even without physically affixing the trademark on the watches—falls within the provisions of the statute.
Whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the defendant intentionally misled the public or the rightful owner (Greilsammer Hermanos) by misappropriating the trade name.
Whether the absence of a direct claim that the watches differed in quality or make from those sold by Greilsammer Hermanos negates the fraudulent intent required under the statute.