Title
Converse Rubber Corp. vs. Rubber and Plastics Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-27425
Decision Date
Apr 28, 1980
Converse sued Jacinto for unfair competition over similar shoe designs; court ruled for Converse, upheld jurisdiction, awarded damages, and found Jacinto in contempt for violating injunction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27425)

Key Dates

A direct appeal in G.R. No. L-27425 was made by both plaintiffs and defendants from the Court of First Instance of Rizal's decision in Civil Case No. 9380. Another direct appeal in G.R. No. L-30505 stemmed from a contempt ruling related to the same case.

Applicable Law

The legal framework applicable to this case primarily revolves around unfair competition as defined under Republic Act No. 166, particularly sections addressing the protection of property rights in goodwill against deceptive practices.

Background of the Case

Converse Rubber Corporation is an American corporation known for manufacturing canvas rubber shoes under the trade name "Converse Chuck Taylor All Star." In the Philippines, Edwardson Manufacturing Corporation serves as its exclusive licensee for the production and sale of these shoes. The trademarks and patents for "All Star" and the design of a five-pointed star are registered in the United States, and the "Chuck Taylor" trademark was registered in the Philippines in 1966.

On the other hand, Jacinto Rubber & Plastics Company, Inc., manufactures its own line of rubber shoes sold under various "Custombuilt" trade names. The specific dispute arose as Jacinto began selling shoes with designs strikingly similar to those of the "Chuck Taylor" product, leading Converse to file a lawsuit asserting claims of unfair competition.

Unfair Competition Claim

The plaintiffs alleged that the shoes produced by Jacinto were almost identical in design and appearance to those of "Chuck Taylor," thus confusing consumers and leading to reputational damage. The design features in question included the specific shape, colors, and placement of patches, which were claimed to be indistinguishable at a casual glance.

Findings of the Trial Court

The trial court found substantial evidence supporting the claim of unfair competition due to the misleading similarity in the general appearance of the products. It concluded that even casual purchasers could confuse "Custombuilt" for "Chuck Taylor," thereby substantiating the plaintiffs' unfair competition claim.

Notably, the court ruled that even though the defendants had registered their trademark prior to Converse’s trademark in the Philippines, this did not negate the possibility of an unfair competition claim, as it relies on deceptive appearance rather than just trademark registration.

Liability and Damages

Upon establishing guilt for unfair competition, the trial court addressed the damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs. Initially sought was 30% of the gross sales of the "Custombuilt" shoes, which amounted to substantial figures, potentially crippling the defendant companies. However, the trial court awarded only P160,000.00 as compensatory damages, which led to appeals from both sides regarding the adequacy of the damages awarded.

Appeals and Jurisdiction

Defendants argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's corporate residency status, as Converse, being a foreign corporation, supposedly could not sue in the Philippines without proper licensing. The court, however, cited legal precedents affirming that a foreign corporation could file for unfair competition provided reciprocal rights exist between the juri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.