Intellectual Property Law
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2004 Shared under Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Philippines license.
Some Rights Reserved.
Table of Contents
Asia Brewery vs. CA, GR 103543, 5 July 1993 …......... 1 Western Equipment vs. Reyes, GR 27897, 2 December 1927 …......... 1 Philips Export BV vs. CA, Gr 96161, 21 February 1992 …......... 2 Asari Yoko v. Kee Boc, GR L-14086, 20 January 1961 …......... 2 Sterling Products Vs. Farbenfabriken Bayer, GR L-19906, 30 April 1969 …......... 3 Kabushi Kaisha Isetan vs. lAC, GR 75420, 15 November 1991 …......... 3 Emerald Garment v CA, GR 100098, 29 December 1995 …......... 4 Converse Rubber vs. Universal Rubber, GR L-27906, 8 January 1986 …......... 4 Pagasa Industrial vs. CA, GR L-54158, 31 August 1984 …......... 5 La Chemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez, GR 63796-97, 21 May 1984 …......... 5 Fruit of the Loom vs. CA, GR L-32747, 29 November 1984 …......... 6 Del Monte vs. CA, GR L-78325, 23 January 1990 …......... 6 246 Corporation v. Daway, GR 157 216, 20 November 2003 …......... 7 Pearl & Dean v. Shoemart, GR 148222, 15 August 2003 …......... 7
This collection contains fourteen (14) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a junior law student) during the First Semester, school year 2004-2005 in the Intellectual Property Law class under Atty. Arnaldo Espinas at the Arellano University School of Law (AUSL). Compiled as PDF, July 2011. Berne Guerrero entered AUSL in June 2002 and eventually graduated from AUSL in 2006. He passed the Philippine bar examinations immediately after (April 2007).
Digests (Berne Guerrero)
 Asia Brewery vs. CA GR 103543, 5 July 1993; En Banc, Grino-Aquino (J) Facts: In 1988, san Miguel Corporation filed a complaint against Asia Brewery Inc. for infringement of trademark and unfair competition on account of the latter’s Beer Pale Pilsen or Beer na Beer product which has been competing with the former’s San Miguel Pale Pilsen for a share of the local beer market. The trial court ruled in favor of Asia Brewery. The appellate court, however, over turned the trial court’s ruling. Asia Brewery appealed. Issue: Whether Asia Brewery is guilty of unfair competition, arising from the allegedly “confusing similarity” in the general appearance of ABI’s Beer Pale Pilsen against SMC’s San Miguel Pale Pilsen. Held: No. The dominant feature of SMC’s trademark is “San Miguel Pale Pilsen” while ABI’s is “Beer Pale Pilsen”. The word “Beer” does not appear in SMC’s product, nor the words “San Miguel” appear in ABI’s product. Neither the sound, spelling or appearance can Beer Pale Pilsen be said to be confusingly similar to San Miguel Pale Pilsen. San Miguel does not have exclusive rights to the generic or descriptive words “pale” and “pilsen”. Neither does it have the exclusive right to use 320 ml. steinie bottle with white rectangular label. The amber color is a functional feature of the beer bottle as the color prevents the transmission of light and provides the maximum protection to beer. The bottle capacity is the standard prescribed by the Metric System Board of the Department of Trade. The white label is the most economical to use and presents the strongest contrast to the bottle. San Miguel cannot claim monopoly to such features as the protection provided by law is confined to non-functional features. Further, Beer Pale Pilsen is not being passed off as San Miguel Beer Pale Pilsen. It does not result to confusion inasmuch as beer is ordered by brand, and is not taken freely from supermarket shelves. The points of dissimilarity of the products outnumber their points of similarity. The appellate court is correct in its finding that Asia Brewery does not infringe upon SMC’s trademark nor does it commit unfair competition.  Western Equipment vs. Reyes GR 27897, 2 December 1927; En Banc, Johns (J) Facts: In 1925, Western Equipment and Supply Co. applied...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document