MIGHTY CORP. vs. E&J GALLO
G.R. NO. 154342
July 14, 2004
PONENTE CORONA; J.
FACTS:
On March
12, 1993, E. & J. GALLO WINERY and THE ANDRESONS GROUP, INC (respondents)
sued MIGHTY CORPORATION and LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACO, INC. (petitioners) in
the RTC-Makati for trademark and trade name infringement and unfair
competition, with a prayer for damages and preliminary injunction.
They
claimed that petitioners adopted the Gallo trademark to ride on Gallo Winery’s and
Gallo and Ernest & Julio Gallo trademark’s
established reputation and popularity, thus causing confusion, deception and
mistake on the part of the purchasing public who had always associated Gallo
and Ernest and Julio & Gallo trademarks with Gallo Winery’s
wines.
In
their answer, petitioners alleged, among other affirmative defenses that:
petitioners Gallo cigarettes and Gallo Winery’s
wine were totally unrelated products. To wit:
1. Gallo Winery’s GALLO trademark
registration certificates covered wines only, and not cigarettes;
2. GALLO cigarettes and GALLO wines were sold through different
channels of trade;
3. the target market of Gallo Winery’s
wines was the middle or high-income bracket while Gallo cigarette buyers were
farmers, fishermen, laborers and other low-income workers;
4. that the dominant feature of the
Gallo cigarette was the rooster device with the manufacturer’s
name clearly indicated as MIGHTY CORPORATION, while in the case of Gallo Winery’s
wines, it was the full names of the founders-owners ERNEST & JULIO GALLO or
just their surname GALLO;
The
Makati RTC denied, for lack of merit, respondent’s
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. CA likewise dismissed respondent’s
petition for review on certiorari.
After
the trial on the merits, however, the Makati RTC held petitioners liable for
committing trademark infringement and unfair competition with respect to the
GALLO trademark.
On
appeal, the CA affirmed the Makati RTC’s
decision and subsequently denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE/S:
Whether
GALLO cigarettes and GALLO wines were identical, similar or related goods for
the reason alone that they were purportedly forms of vice.
RULING:
NO.
Wines and cigarettes are not
identical, similar, competing or related goods.
In resolving whether goods are
related, several factors come into play:
·
the
business (and its location) to which the goods belong
·
the
class of product to which the good belong
·
the
product’s quality,
quantity, or size, including the nature of the package, wrapper or container
·
the
nature and cost of the articles
·
the
descriptive properties, physical attributes or essential characteristics with
reference to their form, composition, texture or quality
·
the
purpose of the goods
·
whether
the article is bought for immediate consumption, that is, day-to-day household
items
·
the
field of manufacture
·
the
conditions under which the article is usually purchased and
·
the articles of the trade through which
the goods flow, how they are distributed, marketed, displayed and sold.
The test of fraudulent simulation is
to the likelihood of the deception of some persons in some measure acquainted
with an established design and desirous of purchasing the commodity with which
that design has been associated. The simulation, in order to be objectionable,
must be as appears likely to mislead the ordinary intelligent buyer who has a
need to supply and is familiar with the article that he seeks to purchase.
The petitioners are not liable for
trademark infringement, unfair competition or damages.
No comments:
Post a Comment