Case Summary (G.R. No. 233073)
Applicable Law
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is applicable to this case, along with the pertinent trademark laws and rules that govern indirect contempt as per the Rules of Court.
Case Background
The dispute began with Civil Case No. 90-1507 filed by the respondent against the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, which ruled in favor of McDonald’s Corporation. The ruling issued a permanent injunction against L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc., forbidding the use of the name "Big Mak" or any similar mark that could mislead consumers into associating the petitioner’s products with McDonald’s.
Initial Court Decisions
The Infringement Court's decision on September 5, 1994, included an order for the petitioner to cease using the name "Big Mak" and to pay actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees to the respondent. The petitioner’s subsequent appeals led to a series of reversals and reinstatements of the original decision in the favor of McDonald's, with a final writ of execution in 2005.
Petition for Contempt
In 2008, the respondent filed a Petition for Contempt against the petitioner, asserting continued use of the name "Big Mak" in their business despite the injunction. The respondent claimed non-compliance with the court order and failure to pay awarded damages, while the petitioner contended that they had rebranded some products and were using the name "Super Mak."
RTC Ruling on Contempt
The RTC of Makati City dismissed the contempt petition on April 7, 2014, ruling in favor of L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision and found the petitioner guilty of indirect contempt, mandating a fine and an order to comply with the initial court decision.
Supreme Court's Review
The Supreme Court focused on whether the petitioner was guilty of indirect contempt. Under Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt is defined by disobedience to a lawful court order. The Court examined whether the petitioner had indeed violated the injunction order after the writ of execution was served.
Findings on Compliance
Evidence presented indicated that the petitioner had changed its branding from "Big Mak" to "Super Mak" and was using its corporate name legally. The Court found that claims of non-compliance were misconstrued, and the petitioner had acted in good faith, showing
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 233073)
Background of the Case
- This case originated from a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the Decision dated February 2, 2017, and Resolution dated July 26, 2017, of the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- The case began with Civil Case No. 90-1507 filed by McDonald's Corporation (respondent) against L.C. Big Mak Burger, Inc. (petitioner) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 137, to address the alleged unauthorized use of the trademark "Big Mak."
- The Infringement Court issued a preliminary injunction on August 16, 1990, prohibiting the petitioner from using the name "Big Mak" or any similar marks that could mislead the public into believing an affiliation with McDonald's.
Proceedings in Lower Courts
- After a trial, the Infringement Court rendered a decision on September 5, 1994, making the injunction permanent and awarding damages to McDonald's.
- The CA initially overturned this decision on November 26, 1999, but the Supreme Court reinstated the Infringement Court's ruling on August 18, 2004.
- Following the Supreme Court's decision, a Writ of Execution was issued on November 14, 2005, to enforce the ruling.
- In 2008, McDonald's filed a Petition for Contempt against the petitioner, alleging continued use of "Big Mak" despite the court's orders.
Petitioner’s Defense
- The petitioner respon