Asia Brewery

ASIA BREWERY, INC. vs. THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS and

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION
G.R. 103543 July 5, 1993
Facts:
San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a complaint against Asia Brewery
Inc. (ABI) 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 SMC's SAN MIGUEL PALE
PILSEN for a share of the local beer market.
The trial court dismissed SMC's complaint because ABI "has not
committed trademark infringement or unfair competition against" SMC
On appeal by SMC, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision rendered
by the trial court, finding the defendant Asia Brewery Incorporated
GUILTY of infringement of trademark and unfair competition. ABI then
filed a petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not ABI infringes SMCs trademark and as such constitutes
unfair competition
Ruling:
No. SMC's brand or trademark: "SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN" is not
infringed by ABI's mark: "BEER NA BEER" or "BEER PALE
PILSEN." ABI makes its own bottle with a bulging neck to differentiate
it from SMC's bottle, and prints ABI's name in three (3) places on said
bottle (front, back and bottle cap) to prove that it has no intention to pass
of its "BEER" as "SAN MIGUEL."There is no confusing similarity
between the competing beers for the name of one is "SAN MIGUEL"
while the competitor is plain "BEER" and the points of dissimilarity
between the two outnumber their points of similarity.
Petitioner ABI has neither infringed SMC's trademark nor committed
unfair competition with the latter's SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN
product. While its BEER PALE PILSEN admittedly competes with the
latter in the open market, that competition is neither unfair nor
fraudulent.
Hence, we must deny SMC's prayer to suppress it.
WHEREFORE, finding the petition for review meritorious, the same is
hereby granted. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 28104 are hereby set aside and that of the trial court is
REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs against the private respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo and Melo,
JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., took no part.
CRUZ, J., dissented.
. The lone issue in this appeal is whether ABI infringes SMC's

trademark: San Miguel Pale
Pilsen with Rectangular Hops and Malt Design, and thereby commits
unfair competition against
the latter. It is a factual issue (Phil. Nut Industry Inc. v. Standard Brands
Inc., 65 SCRA 575) and
as a general rule, the findings of the Court of Appeals upon factual
questions are conclusive and
ought not to be disturbed by us. However, there are exceptions to this
general rule, and they are:
(1) When the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
and
conjectures;(2) When the inference of the Court of Appeals from its
findings of fact is
manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible;
(3) Where there is grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the
issues of
the case, and the same are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and
the appellee;
(6) When the findings of said court are contrary to those of the trial
court;
(7) When the findings are without citation of specific evidence on which
they are
based;
(8) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's
main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
(9) When the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are premised on
the
absence of evidence and are contradicted on record. (Reynolds
Philippine
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 220, 223 citing, Mendoza
vs. Court
of Appeals, 156 SCRA 597; Manlapaz vs. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA
238;
Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593, 609; Guita vs. CA, 139
SCRA 576;
Casanayan vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 333, 336; also Apex
Investment and
Financing Corp. vs. IAC, 166 SCRA 458 [citing Tolentino vs. De Jesus,
56 SCRA
167; Carolina Industries, Inc. vs. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., 97 SCRA
734;
Manero vs. CA, 102 SCRA 817; and Moran, Jr. vs. CA, 133 SCRA 88].)
Under any of these exceptions, the Court has to review the evidence in
order to arrive at the
correct findings based on the record (Roman Catholic Bishop of
Malolos, Inc. vs. IAC, 191 SCRA
411, 420.) Where findings of the Court of Appeals and trial court are
contrary to each other, the
Supreme Court may scrutinize the evidence on record. (Cruz vs. CA,
129 SCRA 222, 227.)
The present case is one of the exceptions because there is no
concurrence between the trial
court and the Court of Appeals on the lone factual issue of whether ABI,
by manufacturing and
selling its BEER PALE PILSEN in amber colored steinie bottles of 320
ml. capacity with a white
painted rectangular label has committed trademark infringement and
unfair competition against
SMC.
What constitutes infringement?

Sec. 22 of Republic Act No. 166, otherwise known as the Trademark
Law, defines Infringement, what constitutes. Any person who shall
use, without the consent of the registrant, any reproduction, counterfeit,
copy or colorable imitation of any registered mark or trade-name in
connection with the sale, offering for sale, or advertising of any goods,
business or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to
cause confusion or mistake or to deceive purchasers or others as to the
source or origin of such goods or services, or identity of such business;
or reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably imitate any such mark or
trade-name and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or
advertisements intended to be used upon or in connection with such
goods, business or services, shall be liable to a civil action by the
registrant for any or all of the remedies herein provided.
Unfair Competition
Unfair competition is the employment of deception or any other means
contrary to good faith by which a person shall pass off the goods
manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or services,
for those of another who has already established goodwill for his similar
goods, business or services, or any acts calculated to produce the same
result. (Sec. 29, Republic Act No. 166, as amended.)
PUBLIC DOMAIN
Masso Hermanos, S.A. vs. Director of Patents,
It was held that a dealer in shoes cannot register "Leather Shoes" as his
trademark because that would be merely descriptive and it would be
unjust to deprive other dealers in leather shoes of the right to use the
same words with reference to their merchandise. No one may

appropriate generic or descriptive words. They belong to the public
domain.
Ong Ai Gui vs. Director of Patents,

A word or a combination of words which is merely descriptive of an
article of trade, or of its composition, characteristics, or qualities,
cannot be appropriated and protected as a trademark to the exclusion of
its use by others. . . . inasmuch as all persons have an equal right to
produce and vend similar articles, they also have the right to describe
them properly and to use any appropriate language or words for that
purpose, and no person can appropriate to himself exclusively any word
or expression, properly descriptive of the article, its qualities,
ingredients or characteristics, and thus limit other persons in the use of
language appropriate to the description of their manufactures, the right
to the use of such language being common to all.
TEST OF DOMINANCY
LIM HOA, Petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, Respondent.
It has been consistently held that the question of infringement of a
trademark is to be determined by the test of dominancy. Similarity in
size, form, and color, while relevant, is not conclusive. If the competing
trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of
another, and confusion and deception is likely to result, infringement
takes place. Duplication or imitation is not necessary; nor it is
necessary that the infringing label should suggest an effort to imitate.
C. Neilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent Brewing Co.,

The question at issue in cases of infringement of trademarks is whether
the use of the marks involved would be likely to cause confusion or
mistakes in the mind of the public or deceive purchasers.
In Forbes, Munn & Co. (Ltd.) vs. Ang San To,
The test was similarity or "resemblance between the two (trademarks)
such as would be likely to cause the one mark to be mistaken for the
other. . . . [But] this is not such similitude as amounts to identity.
In Phil. Nut Industry Inc. vs. Standard Brands Inc.,
The court was more specific: the test is "similarity in the dominant
features of the trademarks."
What are the dominant features of the competing trademarks before us?
The registered trademark of SMC for its pale pilsen beer is: San
Miguel Pale Pilsen With Rectangular Hops and Malt Design.
The dominant feature of SMC's trademark is the name of the
product: SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, written in white Gothic
letters with elaborate serifs at the beginning and end of the letters
"S" and "M" on an amber background across the upper portion of
the rectangular design.
ABI's trademark is: a rectangular design bordered by what appear

to be buds of flowers with leaves.
The dominant feature is "Beer" written across the upper portion of
the rectangular design. The phrase "Pale Pilsen" appears
immediately below in smaller block letters. To the left is a hop
design and to the right, written in small prints, is the phrase "Net
Contents 320 ml." Immediately below "Pale Pilsen" is the
statement written in three lines "Especially brewed and bottled by"
(first line), "Asia Brewery Incorporated" (second line), and
"Philippines" The dominant feature of ABI's trademark is the
name: BEER PALE PILSEN, with the word "Beer" written in large
amber letters, larger than any of the letters found in the SMC
label.
In Co Tiong Sa vs. Director of Patents.

Infringement is determined by the "test of dominancy" rather than by
differences or variations in the details of one trademark and of another.
Does ABI's BEER PALE PILSEN label or "design" infringe upon SMC's
SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN WITH RECTANGULAR MALT AND
HOPS DESIGN? The answer is "No."
:
Jose Maria Borromeo Dela Llana
JD - 3

Asia Brewery

Uploaded by

Asia Brewery

Uploaded by

ASIA BREWERY, INC. vs. THE HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and

. The lone issue in this appeal is whether ABI infringes SMC's

What constitutes infringement?

same words with reference to their merchandise. No one may

Ong Ai Gui vs. Director of Patents,

C. Neilman Brewing Co. vs. Independent Brewing Co.,

ABI's trademark is: a rectangular design bordered by what appear

In Co Tiong Sa vs. Director of Patents.

You might also like