PHILIPPInEs
Compania General De tabacos De filipinas and La flor De Le Th e court found that San Miguel had registered the trademark Ginebra
Isabela v. tabaqueria De filipinas
San Miguel; there is a close resemblance between Ginebra San Miguel
and Ginebra Kapitan; the close similarity between Ginebra San Miguel
Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas (Tabacalera) owns 24 trademarks
and Ginebra Kapitan may give rise to confusion since San Miguel and
registered with the former Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
Tanduay are competitors in the liquor business; and Ginebra, a well-known
Transfer (BPTTT). It authorised La Flor de la Isabela (La Flor) to manufacture
trademark, was adopted by Tanduay to benefi t from the reputation of
and sell cigars and cigarettes using these Tabacalera trademarks.
Ginebra San Miguel and to give the impression of connection between the
On February 8, 1994, Tabacalera and La Flor fi led an unfair competition
manufacturer of the gin product sold under the name Ginebra San Miguel
complaint with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), seeking
and the new gin product Ginebra Kapitan.
a preliminary investigation of Tabaqueria De Filipinas (Tabaqueria).
Th e trial court concluded that San Miguel had demonstrated a clear, positive
Th ey alleged that Tabaqueria sought to adopt/simulate the Tabacalera
and existing right to be protected by a TRO. San Miguel would have suff ered
trademarks to confuse the public into believing that Tabaqueria cigars are
irreparable injury if the infringement wasn’t enjoined.
the same or are somehow connected with Tabacalera products.
Th e Court of Appeals (CA) affi rmed the lower court’s order, noting that
Th e Offi ce of Legal Aff airs of the DTI issued an order fi nding that there
gin drinkers thought San Miguel was the manufacturer of Ginebra Kapital.
was no similarity in the general appearance of the products and that
Ginebra has been identifi ed with San Miguel’s goods and so San Miguel has
consumers would not be misled. However, it partially granted Tabacalera’s
the right to the mark.
request for a preliminary injunction with respect to a barrel-type container
and certain features in the packaging that are confusingly similar to the La
Th e Supreme Court overturned the CA, as it is not clear whether San Miguel
has the exclusive right to prevent other business entities from using the word
Flor’s packaging. It enjoined Tabaqueria from further manufacturing and
Ginebra. It is not settled whether Ginebra is indeed the dominant feature of
using the wooden barrel type of container for cigars.
the trademarks, whether it is a generic word that as a matter of law cannot
Tabacalera and La Flor appealed to the Court of Appeals but the appeal
be appropriated or whether it is merely a descriptive word that may be
was rejected. On appeal, the Supreme Court also found that Tabacalera
appropriated based on the fact that it has acquired a secondary meaning.
and La Flor had failed to establish their entitlement to a writ of
San Miguel also failed to prove the probability of irreparable injury
preliminary injunction.
that it would suffer if the sale of Ginebra Kapitan was not enjoined.
For injunctive relief to be issued, the applicant must show that the right of
Without proof that the damage is irreparable and incapable of pecuniary
the complainant is clear and unmistakable; the invasion of the right sought
estimation, San Miguel’s claim cannot be the basis for a valid writ of
to be protected is material and substantial; and there is an urgent necessity
preliminary injunction.
for the writ to prevent serious damage.
Copyright
tanduay Distillers v. Ginebra san Miguel
ABs-CBn Broadcasting Corporation v.
Tanduay Distillers (Tanduay) developed a new gin product with the brand
Philippine Multi-Media system
name Ginebra Kapitan. Aft er fi ling the trademark application for Ginebra
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (ABS-CBN) broadcasts television
Kapitan with the Intellectual Property Offi ce (IPO) and securing the
programmes produced or purchased by it, or licensed to it by other
required permits, Tanduay began selling Ginebra Kapitan.
producers, through Channels 2 and 23. Philippine Multi-Media System
(PMSI) delivers digital direct-to-home (DTH) television via satellite to its
Ginebra San Miguel (San Miguel) fi led a complaint for trademark
subscribers, and off ers ABS-CBN Channels 2 and 23.
infringement, unfair competition and damages, with applications for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction against
ABS-CBN demanded that PMSI ceases and desists from rebroadcasting
Tanduay. Th e trial court prohibited Tanduay from manufacturing, selling these channels and filed a complaint for violation of IP rights laws with
and advertising Ginebra Kapitan. the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), alleging that PMSI’s unauthorised
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 127
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173