u~~1j~()j - intellectual property...
TRANSCRIPT
C"f""V, .; .
IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC., Complainant-Appe
- versus-
APPEAL NO. 10-05-01 ant,
IPV No. 10-2001-00004 Administrative Complaint for Violation of Laws involving Intellectual Property Rights
1I! ~ SEHWANI INC. and/or
BENITA'S FRITES, INC., Respondents-Appe
x---------------------------------------
NOT
VILLARAZA & ANGANGCO Counsel for the Complainant-Appella 5th Floor, LTA Building 118 Perea Street, Legaspi Village
i1 J
II
I
ees, ---x
CE OF DECISION
ATTY. RAMON L. CARPIOt Counsel for Respondents-Appellees
172 C. Raymundo Avenue Maybunga, Pasig City
I
I
01229 Makati City 1 jI /.'U~~1J~()J
IIIj
IIESTRELLITA BELTRAN-ABE 0 CARMEN G. PERALTADirector, Bureau of Legal Affairs \10 Director Intellectual Property Office ~ \ Documentation, Information and Teihnology
Transfer Bureau Intellectual Property Office
GREETINGS:
I
I
Please be informed that on 23 December 2005, the Office of the Directo rendered a Decision in the above-enti ed case (copy attached).
Makati City, 23 December 20 5.
Very truly yours,
~ ROBERT NEREO B. SAMSON AttomeyIV Office of the Director General
General
! I
fI
It
I I
I I',· ,•.I. , ,' . 'r
1
I I
1
I
INTELLECTUAL PRO ERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES
IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC., Complainant-Appe ant,
- versus-
SEHWANI INC. and/or BENITA'S FRITES, INC.,
Respondents-Appe lees. x-----------------------------------------i---x
NOT
VILLARAZA & ANGANGCO Counsel for the Complainant-Appella 5th Floor, LTA Building 118 Perea Street, Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City
ESTRELLITA BELTRAN-ABE Director, Bureau of Legal Affairs Intellectual Property Office
GREETINGS:
Please be informed that on rendered a Decision in the above-enti
Makati City, 23 December 20
(J --,....-.. " 'iii ~ • __
APPEAL NO. 10-05-01
IPV No. 10-2001-00004 Administrative Complaint for Violation of Laws involving Intellectual Property Rights
CE OF DECISION
ATTY. RAMON L. CARPIO' t Counsel for Respondents-Appellees
172 C. Raymundo Avenue tMaybunga, Pasig City
o CARMEN G. PERALTA Director 1
~-N. ,._'\
;x'
Documentation, Information and Te hnology Transfer Bureau I
Intellectual Property Office
I
23 December 2005, the Office of the Directol General ed case (copy attached).
5. . I
~
Very truly yours, I
I
ROBERT NEREO B. SAMSON Attorney IV Office of the Director General
I I
I
- -- --- ---,-----------------,
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES
IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC., APPEAL NO. 10-05-01J III
Complainant-Appellant,
IPV No. 10-2001-00004 Administrative Complaint for
1 j - versus- Violation of Laws involving 1 Intellectual Property Rights
, -I
IIII
SEHWANI INC. and/or BENITA'S FRITES, INC.,
Respondents-Appellees. x-----------------------------------------------x
NOTICE OF DECISION
VILLARAZA & ANGANGCO ATTY. RAMON L. CARPIO Counsel for the Complainant-Appellant Counsel for Respondents-Appellees 5th Floor, LTA Building 172 C. Raymundo Avenue 118 Perea Street, Legaspi Village Maybunga, Pasig City 1229 Makati City
f 1l 1l )
ESTRELLITA BELTRAN-ABELARDO CARMEN G. PERALTA Director, Bureau of Legal Affairs Director Intellectual Property Office Documentation, Information and Te hnology
Transfer Bureau Intellectual Property Office
GREETINGS: 'I
Please be informed that on 23 December 2005, the Office of the Director General rendered a Decision in the above-entitled case (copy attached).
Makati City, 23 December 2005.
Very truly yours,
~ ROBERT NEREO B. SAMSON ,Attorney IV Office of the Director General
'" , . ".
,
f!I{ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE PHILIPPINES
-
t 1 1
IN-N-OUT BURGER, INC., Complainant-Appellant,
- versus-
SEHWANI INC. and/or BENITA'S FRITES, INC.,
Respondents-Appellees. x-----------------------------------------------x
APPEAL NO. 10-05-01
IPV No. 10-2001-00004 Administrative Complaint for Violation of Laws involving Intellectual Property Rights
1
Il
II i!I
IiI
!I
DECISION
TIll, mncero, the appeal from Decision No. 2003-02 dated 22 Dece~ber 2003
rendered by the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (Director), the rSPOSitiVe
portion of which reads, as follows:
"With the foregoing disquisition, Certificate of Registration No. 56666 dated 17 December 1993 for the mark: 'IN-N-OUT' (the inside of the letter '0' formed like a star) issued in favor of Sehwani, Incorporated, is hereby CANCELLED. Consequently, Respondents Sehwani, Inc. and Benita's Frites are hereby ordered to permanently cease and desist from using the mark 'IN-N-OUT and IN-N-OUT BURGER LOGO' on its goods and in its business. With regards the mark 'Double-Double', considering that as earlier discussed, the mark has been approved by this Office for publication and that as shown by the evidence, Complainant is the owner of the said mark, Respondents are also hereby ordered to permanendy cease and desist from using the mark Double-Double. NO COSTS."
TIll, case involve> the determination of whether or not Re>ponden"lpPdlee,
SEHWANI, INC. andj'or BENITA'S FRITES, INC. (Appellees) are liable for unfair
compenuon.
Records show that on 04 June 2001, Complainant-Appellant I -N-OUT ,j
Ir
I
BURGER, INC. (Appellant), a foreign corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California, United States of America, filed in the Burea of Legal
in-n-out vs.lsehWani page 1 o~ 16
II
I
I
I
1','
Affairs (BLA), an administrative complaint for violation of laws involving ftellectual
property rights against the Appellees,' alleging the following:
iij
!
t
II,J
,
IiI
I
I
I
1. It is the owner of the trade name IN-N-OUT and the following ma+s: IN-N
OUT, IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design and IN-N-OUT Burger Logo;
2. Its marks are internationally well-known marks and have become diS~nCtiVe of I: !
its business and/or goods through its long and exclusive commercial use; I
3. Its marks are duly registered in the Trademark Office of the Unite4 States of , \ I
1I
America and in various parts of the world.2 I
I f
4. On 02 June 1997, it filed in the IPO trademark and service mark a~Plications for IN-N-OUT Burger & Arrow Design and IN-N-OUT; I
I
I~
5. On 31 May 2000, the IPO issued Official Action Papers, which disJosed that
Appellee SEHWANI, INC. had obtained Trademark Registration for the mrk IN N t ~ ~
OO~ I
6. It sent a demand letter to Appellees to cease and desist froml claiming
ownership of the mark IN-N-OUT and to voluntarily cancel its trademark regisration;
I II
I
7. On 23 October 2000, it received a response from Appellees stating ~efuSal to f
accede to its demand but "are willing to buy peace" and "are willing to surrenfer (their)
trademark registration over IN-N-OUT in exchange for a fair and r asonable
consideration";
I
I
!Both domestic corporations, with principal address at 172 C. Raymundo Avenue, Maybunga, ptig City. 2 Appellant claimed that its marks are duly registered and/or applied for in the trademark ort·tellectual property offices of other countries which are signatories to the Paris Convention including, but ot limited to: Australia, Benelux, Canada, Denmark, France, Gennany, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, Ne Zealand, Spain, South Korea, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. I
;"-";;+".,
I
Ii !
8. Its internationally well-known trademarks and the mark of Appell es, which
was registered for restaurant business, are clearly identical and confusingly +as tbey
all contain the words "IN" and "OUT" and the letter "N" in the middle; and
9. Appellees, in bad faith, employed deception in making it appear I that their
goods and services are those of the Appellant, misleading ordinary and unruspecting
purchasers and consumers into believing that Appellees' restaurant is thrt of the
Appellant. I
Appellant also applied for rbe issuance of. temporary restraining orJer (IRa)
and!or a writ of preliminary injunction and an order to impound sales docume ts.
In their Answer with Counterclaim, Appellees alleged that:
1. They first used the mark IN N OUT io the Philippines 00 15 octobf 1982;
2. 00 15 November 1991, Appellee SEHWANI, INC. filed an 'PPlicttiOO with
the then Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer (BPITIf for the i
registration of the mark IN N OUT (the inside of the "0" formed like a star); I t
3. On 17 December 1993, a certificate of registration was issued in favor of
Appellee SEHWANI, INC.;
4. On 30 August 2000, Appellee SEHWANI, INC. licensed Appellee B NITA'S
FRITES, INC. to use its mark;
S. Appellant has no legal capacity to sue as it has never been in opera on in the
[
fl
jI
!
III
IIi
I If
t
against it as the mark IN N OUT is registered in the name of Appellee S WANI, ~
INC.; [
Philippines, the complaint states no cause of action, and, Appellant does not have any
, On 01 J,nuary 1998, Republic A" No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property J""" of the Philippines took effect. Said Act, among other things, abolished the BPTIT and transferred ij functions
I
t to the newly created Intellectual Property Office (IPO). I
1
t
(~ in-n-out vs. ehwani
page3 O~16
!I
Ir
6. Appellee SEHWANI, INC. being the registered owner of the tk IN N
OUT has in its favor the presumption that it has acquired a valid registrati01, that it is
the owner of the mark subject of registration, and, that it has the exclusive ri~ht to use
the mark; and
7. Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of
the Philippines, provides for the grounds when a certificate of registratio~ may be
cancelled and that not one of such grounds exists in this case.
On 09 August 2001, the Director issued an Order denying the
application for the issuance of a TRO. Appellant filed a Motion for Recon ideration,
which was denied by the Director per Resolution No. 2001-02 dated 27 Nove ber 2001.
Thereafter, on 22 December 2003, the Director rendered the assailed Decisi n, which
includes a finding that the Appellees are not guilty of unfair competition.
Consequently, the Appellant moved for the partial of thereeOnSideratiO~ decision on 13 February 2004. Appellant asked the Director to declare the ~ppellees
guilty of unfair competition and order them to pay attorney's fees, damages (~ouble of
whatever amount to be awarded) and costs of suit, and the condemnation or feizure of
the products subject of the offense and forfeiture of paraphernalia and alII real and
personal properties, which have been used in the commission of the offense.
On 25 April 2005, the Director issued Resolution No. 2005-05 de ying the
Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by the Appellant. Obviously not sa sfied, the
Appellant elevated the case to this Office on appeal.
Stripped of non-essentials, the instant appeal reiterates the Appellant's tgumen"
in the earlier proc~edings in ~he B~ that the evidence.on record clearly s~ows that
Appellees are passing off their business, goods and services for those' of I~-N-OUT
Burger and are, thus, liable for unfair competition. Appellant contends that 1he ruling
that there cannot be passing off of goods in the absence of any transaction c01ering the
sale of food items and!or restaurant serviees in the Philippines is patently withiut metit
f in-n-out vs. thwani
page 4 0'16 I,I
0' ,
.'
as sale is not an element of unfair competition. Appellant, thus, argues that Appellees
should be held liable for damages and award of attorney's fees.
Commenting on the appeal, Appellee. "'gue that no fraudulent intJ could be
imputed to them as would make them liable for unfair competition. AppelleJ contend
that Appellant cannot claim that it has already identified in the mind of the I public its
goods and/or services because the latter has never entered into any transaction I ~nvolving the same in the Philippines. Appellees also assert that they have openly and cobtinuously
used the subject mark in good faith since 1982. Appellees, thus, claim that Jy cannot
be held liable for damages, expenses of litigation and attorney's fees, there I being no
fraudulent intent or bad faith on their part.
This Office's Ruling:
After due consideration of the foregoing and the evidence on record, ts Office
finds the appeal meritorious.
On the Issue of Unfair Competition
Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293 provides that:
"SEC. 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Regulations and Remedies.168.1. A person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, whether or not a registered mark is employed, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected in the same
ii !
manner as other property rights. "168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or any other means
contrary to good faith by which he shall pass off the goods manufactured by himIfi
II
~.or in which he deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action therefore.
"168.3. In particular, and without in any way limiting the scope of protection against unfair competition, the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:
(a) Any person, who is selling his goods and gives them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are contained, or the devices or words thereon, or in any other feature of their appearance, which would be likely to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the actual manufacturer or dealer, or who
t
in-n-outvs, jehwani pageSo 16
.< ,
otherwise clothes the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose;
I b) Any person who by any artifice, or device, or who employs any other
means calculated to induce the false belief that such person is offering the services of another who has identified such services in the mind of the public; or
(c) Any person who shall make any false statement in the course ofI trade or who shall commit any other act contrary to good faith of a nature
~ calculated to discredit the goods, business or services of another. "168.4. The remedies provided by Sections 156, 157 and 161 shall apply
j mutatis mutandis."
Unfair competition concerns the passing-off or attempting to pass-off e public
the goods or business of one person as and for the goods or business of ano her. The
concept is to give protection to a person who has earned goodwill on his good , business
or services. Unfair competition is a question of fact and the determinati n of the
existence thereof rests on the issue of whether or not, as a matter of fact, a def ndant, is,
by conduct, passing off defendant's goods as plaintiff's goods or defendant's b siness as
plaintiff's business. The universal test is whether the public is likely to be dec ived." In
unfair competition, fraudulent intent is essential.'
In this me, there is substantial evidence that prove, that Appellee' "1 guilty of
unfair competition.
This Office does not agree with the Director's findings that the Appelljs cannot
be held guilty of unfair competition because they were supposedly using their f~gistered
trademark in good faith. The function of a trademark is to point out distinctly re origin
or ownership of the goods to which it is affixed; to secure to him, who Ihas been
instrumental in bringing into the market a superior article of merchandise, the fFt of his
industry and skill; to assure the public that they are procuring the genuine rticle; to
prevent fraud and imposition; and to protect the manufacturer against SUbStirtiOn and
sale of an inferior and different article as his product."
The evidence on record shows that the Appellee' were not using their ~gistered trademark but that of the Appellant. Appellee SEHWANI, INC. was issued a qertificate
4 G.R. No. 8937,21 March 1914, Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Co. vs. Pedro N.IMojica. 5 Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-78325, 25 January 1990. 6 Pribhdas J. Mirpuri vs. CA, G.R. No. 114508, 19 November 1999, citing Etepha vs, Director of Patents, 16 SCRA 495 (1966), Gabriel V. Perez, 55 SCRA 406 (1974).
in-n-out ".1 hwani page 6 O~6
of Registration for IN N OUT (with the Inside of the Letter '0' Formed like Star) for
restaurant business in 1993. The restaurant opened only in 2000 but under the arne IN
N-OUT BURGER? Apparently, the Appellees started constructing the restaurant only
after the Appellant demanded that the latter desist from claiming ownership o( the mark
IN-N-OUT and voluntarily cancel their trademark regisrration." Moreover, Apbellees are
also using Appellant's registered mark Double-Double9 for use on hamburgerlproducts.
II
In fact, the burger wrappers and the french fries receptacles the Appellees ar using do
not bear the mark registered by the Appellee, but the Appellant's IN-N-OU Burger's I name and trademark IN -N -OUT with Arrow design. to I
f~
There is no evidence '"'0 that the Appellees were authorized by the A+e11anr to
use the latter's marks in their business. Appellees' explanation that they are not using
their own registered trademark due to the difficulty in printing the "star" does ot justify
the unauthorized use of the Appellant's trademark instead.
Further, Appellees are giving their products the general appearance ,at would
likely influence purchasers to believe that these products are those of the Appe~ant. The
intention to deceive may be inferred from the similarity of the goods as Pfked and
offered for sale, and, thus, action will lie to restrain such unfair competition." is held by
the Supreme Court in the c.,e of Rueda Hermanos & Co. vs. Felix Paglinawan tCo.",
"If the contents of the two packages are same commodity, it is no defense to an action for unfair competition to show minor differences in the size or shape of the packages or in the color or wording of the labels or wrappers of the packages. If the exterior size, shape, color, and description, in other words, those things which go to make up the general outside appearance of the article are so substantially similar, as to likely deceive the ordinary purchaser, exercising ordinary care, the defendant is guilty of unfair competition."
And in the case of McDonalds Corp. et al vs. L.c. Big Mak Bur
Supreme Court held that:
? See Exhibit GG and KK 8 Exhibit Cc. 9 Certificate of Registration No. 4-1997-121146 10 See Exhibits SS, IT, UU, and VV. 11 SeeJonas Brook Bros. vs. Froelich & Kuttner, G. R. No. L-3369, 24 September 1907. lZG.R. No. 10738, 14 January 1916. 13 G.R. No. 143993,18 August 2004.
t I f ~
r ! 1
\ 13 I
er , the I•)
II
I i ,I
in-n-out VS. ~hwani
page7 0 116
I
,'
"Passing off (or palming off) takes place where the defendant, by imitative devices on the general appearance of the goods, misleads prospective purchasers into buying his merchandise under the impression that they are buying that of his competitors. Thus, the defendant gives his goods the general f
t' appearance of the goods of his competitor with the intention of deceiving the public that the goods are those of his competitor."
Appellees' use of IN-N-OUT BURGER in business signages reveals ~aUdUlent
intent to deceive purchasers. Exhibit "GG", which shows the business establi hment of
Appellees illustrates the imitation of Appellant's corporate name IN-N-OUT a d signage
IN-N-OUT BURGER,14 Even the Director noticed it and held:
) Ii
\I !"We also note that In-N-Out Burger is likewise, complainant's ~.
[Appellant's] corporate name. It has used the 'IN-N-OUT' Burger name in its restaurant business in Baldwin Park, California in the United States of America since 1948. Thus, it has the exclusive right to use the tradename 'In-N-Out' Burger in the Philippines and the respondents [Appellees] are unlawfully using and appropriating the same."15
This Office cannot give credence to the Appellees' claim of good fai
they have openly and continuously used the subject mark since 1982 and is in
of expanding their business. They contend that assuming that there is val e in the
r
I JItf
Jt
III •
and that
foreign registrations presented as evidence by the Appellant, the purported exclusive ~
!I
IiI
I!fI
right to the use of the subject mark based on such foreign registrations is not e sential to
a right of action for unfair competition. Appellees also claim that actual or probable
deception and confusion on the part of customers by reason of respondents' practices
must always appear, and in the present case, the BLA has found none. This 0 fice finds
the arguments untenable. ! In contrast, the Appellees have the burden of evidence to prove that th y do not
have fraudulent intent in using the mark IN-N-OUT.16
Appellees could have easily offered evidence of use of their registered tradem
they claimed to be using as early as 1982,17 but did not.
II
14See also Exhibits HH and II. 15 DECISION, p.14. 16 Exhibits GG to KK, QQ to VV, and YY to ZZ, all inclusive of submarkings. 17 Exhibit 1 t
in-n-out vs.1hwam
,..,80 I"
[ fr
I \I
Appellee' also failed to explain why they are using the mark. of ~PPellant particularly DOUBLE DOUBLE, and the mark IN-N-OUT Burger and Arro Design.
Even in their listing of menus"; Appellees used Appellant's marks of OUBLE
DOUBLE and IN-N-OUT Burger and Arrow Design.19 In addition, in the wrappers
and receptacles being used by the Appellees which also contained the m s of the
Appellant," there is no notice in such wrappers and receptacles that the ham~urger and
french fries are products of the Appellees. Furthermore, the receipts issurd by the
Appellees even indicate "representing IN-N-OUT"21. These acts cannot be rnsidered
acts in good faith.
There is no doubt that the Appellant has acquired goodwill on the tr de name
IN-N-OUT and its marks IN-N-OUT Burger and Arrow Design and
DOUBLE being the owner thereof. Appellant has also caused the registratio of these
name and marks in other countries22 and the filing of trademark and serv ce marks
applications here in the Philippines.f The Director in fact ruled that:
"In this regard, this Office would like to emphasize that goodwill can be obtained even when there is no existing business in a certain jurisdiction. In this regard, Complainant's [Appellant's] witness, Raymund Villanueva testified:
IIi
t !
I 'Atty. Villanueva: ~ Q: And Mr. Witness, you mentioned you sell t-shirts and other collectibles
which is enumerated in your catalog. Where did you sell such shirts and other products.
W'itness: A: If you open the internet and go to our website, anybody from around the
world could buy those products. During the last year, we sold products throughout the different states, in the United States and at least in four continents globally.
Q: And what are these continents, Mr. W'itness?
A: Australia, Europe, North America and (paused) Australia, Asia, Europe and North America.P'
f
IIII
II
~
18 See Exhibits 00 and PP, inclusive of submarkings. 19 Exhibit PP-l. 20 See Exhibits SS, IT, UU and VV. 21 See Exhibits YY and ZZ. 22 Ibid. 23 See Exhibits G to K and NN, inclusive of submarkings. 24(franscript of Stenographic Notes, March 4, 2002, page 35).
I
rI
in-n-out vs. hwani page90 16
" I I l
I Furthermore, witness, Mr. Raymund Villanueva testified on 5 March 2005
that IN-N-OUT restaurants are located in areas were there were many FilipinoAmerican population (Refer to page 7, 5 March 2002 Transcript of Stenographic notes). Annex 'G' of his affidavit is a letter from the mayor of Daly City. In the I letter, Mayor Michael Guingona said Daly City has 32,720 Filipino residents and
I ,
that IN-N-OUT Burger is a popular dining destination there. Exhibit 'H' of Raymund Villanueva's affidavit are 'letter offers' from different persons to open IN-N-OUT stores in other countries including the Philippines. These circumstances more than sufficiendy show that the complainant has acquired goodwill and thus, provides it with a solid basis to enforce its right to use its tradename and mark 'IN-N-OUT' in the Philippines to the exclusion of others."25 (emphasis supplied)
Goodwill is protected by law on unfair competition." One who has
goodwill and reputation for his goods or business is entided to all the benefits
since goodwill is property and like any other property, is protected against inva ion." In
this case, to permit the Appellees to continue using the trade name and mark I
would be to countenance the unlawful appropriation of the benefit of a good . , which
Appellant has acquired, and would be tantamount to permitting the Appellees t grab the I reputation or goodwill of the business of Appellant." 1
tThe Director, thus, is in error when it did not hold Appellees liable or unfair ~
~
competition. Neither the Director was correct when she held that the Appellan s are not
engaged in the sale, manufacturing nor importation of their products in the P . ppines."
It is not in accord with jurisprudence to include sale, as the Director w uld want Ifto impress upon, as an element of unfair competition. While indeed the cases of unfair
competition cited by the Director cover situations where the products be ring the c contested marks were sold in the Philippines, these do not imply that sale is a element
of unfair competition. Again, in the case of McDonalds Corp. et al vs. L.c. Big Mak
Burger,3D the Supreme Court enumerated the essential elements of an action or unfair
competition.
1
2S DECISION, page 16. I 26 De La Rama Steamship Co. vs. National Development Co., G. R. No. L-26966, 30 October 1 70. 27 Alhambra Cigar and Cigarette Manufacturing Co. vs, Pedro N. Mojica, G. R. No. 8937,21 M ch 1914. 28 See also De La Rama case. 29 Resolution No. 2005-05 dated 25 April 2005, page 3. 3D See footnote 12.
in-n-out vs. ehwani page 100 16
I
I
.' . · , Ii ~. r
"The essential elements of an action for unfair competition are (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor. The confusing similarity mayor may not result form similarity in the marks, but may result from other external factors in the packaging or presentation of the goods. The intent to deceive and defraud may be inferred from the similar appearnce of the goods as offered for sale to the public. Actual fraudulent intent need not be shown."
Further, in the case of Converse Rubber Corporation and E
Manufacturing Corporation vs. Jacinto Rubber & Plastics Co., Inc. and Ace
Plastic Corporation," the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule in the issue
an element of unfair competition, to wit:
'To read such conditions, as defendants-appellants seek to do, in the plain prescription of the law is to re-construct it. Indeed, goodwill established in other than a competitive milieu is no less a property right that deserves protection from unjust appropriation or injury. This, to us, is precisely the clear sense of the law when it declares without equivocation that a 'person who has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his business or services from those of others, has a property right in the goodwill of the said goods, business or services so identified, which will be protected in the same manner as other property rights.'
'Plaintiffs-appellees have established goodwill. This goodwill, the trial
I I
I,I
wardson
ubber &
of sale as
!.
court found, defendants-appellants have pirated in clear bad faith to their unjust enrichment. It is strange that defendants- appellants now say that they should be spared from the penalty of law, because they were not really in competition with plaintiffs-appellees. ",
There, is therefore, no legal basis to conclude that sale is an element of unfair
competition.
On the Issue of Award of Damages
With respect to the Appellant's claim for damages and award of attome 's fees, it
is well-established that a complaint for unfair competition is basically a suit for i junction
and damages. Injunction, for the purpose of enjoying the unlawful compe tor from
II
\I
!IIIr
\Iproceeding further, and damages, in order to allow the aggrieved party to re over the ~
damages he has suffered by reason of the said unlawful competirion.f With t e finding
that Appellees are guilty of unfair competition, this Office must grant the ard for
damages in favor of Appellant.
31 97 SeRA 158 (1980). 32 Foto-Quick, Inc. vs. Nicolas P. Lapena,Jr. et al, G. R. No. 76322, 11 March 1991.
in-n-out .L, page11 0 16
1
f
r
;
\
..\,
Section 168.4 of the IP Code provides that the remedies provided by
and 161 shall apply mutatis mutandis. Sections 156 and 157 of the IP Code
follows:
"Sec. 156, Actions, and Damages and Injunction for Infringement.- 156.1 The owner of a registered mark may recover damages from any person who infringes his rights, and the measure of the damages suffered shall be either the reasonable profit which the complaining party would have made, had the defendant not infringed his rights, or the profit which the defendant actually made out of the infringement, or in the event such measure of damages cannot be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty, then the court may award as damages a reasonable percentage based upon the amount of gross sales of the defendant or the value of the services in connection with which the mark or trade name was used in the infringement of the rights of the complainant. 156.2. On application of the complainant, the court may impound during the pendency of the action, sales invoices and other documents evidencing sales. 156.3 In cases where actual intent to mislead the public or to defraud the
156, 157,
rovide as
I!!
I
r
complainant is shown, in the discretion of the court, the damages may be doubled. 156.4. The complainant, upon proper showing, may also be granted injunction.
Sec, 157. Power of Court to Order Infringing Material Destroyed. 157.1 In any action arising under this Act, in which a violation of any right of the owner of the registered mark is established, the court may order that goods found to be infringing be, without compensation of any sort, disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm caused to the right holder, or
I !
advertisements in the possession of the defendant, bearing the registered mark or trade name or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation thereof, all plates, molds, matrices and other means of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed."
II
destroyed; and all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and ~
[ Under Section 168 in relation to Section 156, the remedies against an infringer
may also be applied against a person committing unfair competition. Accor . gly, this
Office awards damages to the Appellant. However, since the amount of damag s cannot
be readily ascertained with reasonable certainty, this Office award as dama es thirty
percent (30%) of the gross sales by the Appellees. In the case of Convers Rubber
Corporation and Edwardson Manufacturing Corporation vs. Jacinto Rubber Plastics
Co., Inc. and Ace Rubber & Plastic Corporation.f the Supreme Court said that:
"It is not farfetched to assume that the net profit of the imitator which, after all is what the law contemplates as basis for damages if it were only actually ascertainable, in the manufacture of rubber shoes should not be less than 20 to
25% of the gross sales."
33 See footnote 30.
in-n-out vs. hwani page 12 0 16
IiII
I
I!
!
!!
I
Appellant claims that Kishu Sehwani admitted that Appellee Sehwani, I c. earned
Ten Million Pesos (p10,000,000.00) a year for ten years. However, in the a sence of
substantial evidence to prove such claim and to corroborate this testimtny, such
testimony cannot be given any credence and weight in this case. In fact, wha was only !
established is that Appellees are operating one (1) outlet in Pasig City.
The evidence adduced by both parties show that the sales of Appellee B NITA'S
FRIES, INC. from 23 December 2000 to 31 March 2002 is Three Hundred ifty Four
Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Pesos and 46/100 (p354,290.46)34 Thirty
this amount is One Hundred Six Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Seven esos and
if
II
Il ~
14/100 (p106,287.14). Under Section 156.3, in cases where actual intent to lSlead the
public or to defraud the complainant is shown, in the discretion of the ourt, the
damages may be doubled. As actual intent to mislead the public or to
28/100
de raud the
complainant is shown, the amount of P106,287.14 should be doubled.
ir,
I ! !I!
amount is two hundred twelve thousand five hundred seventy four
(p212,574.28). Appellant is, thus, en tided to the award of this amount of dama es \ l
This Office also finds that by way of example or correction for the pu lie good,
with the objective of enhancing the protection of intellectual property and p eventing
similar acts of unfair competition, Appellees should be liable to pay Appellant xemplary
t III
II
tdamages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (p500,000.00). xemplary
damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to
deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions."
Regarding attorney's fees, Article 2208 of the New Civil Code pro 'des that
attorney's fees may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded or Ihere the
\I!
I
court deems it just and equitable.i? It is well settled that in the recovery of ttorney's
fees, whether as a main action or as an incident of another action, the determi ation of
the reasonableness is within the prerogative of the courta." Moreover, in the ca e of Jose
34 Exhibits GGGG to UUUU and Exhibits 19 to 33. 35 See G. R. No. 118325,29 January 1997. 36 Paragraph Nos. 1 and 11. 37 COMPANIA MARITIMA, INC. et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EXEQUIEL S. CO SULTA, G.R. No. 128452,16 November 1999.
in-n-our ".1 hwani page13 ott6
I
. 1 fIIII
f!
Ilr!
\
II
I Concerning moral damages, in the case of Development Bank of the P !
4QCourt of Appeals, et. al.vs. ,
I
!I
II rI,Ii
I frI f
Il [IIi
,. j'" ,.
Abrogar, et al vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al./8 it was held that the e ercise of
judicial discretion in the award of attorneys fees demands factual, legal and equitable
justification.
In this case, this Office finds it just and equitable to award atto y's fees.
Appellant was constrained to engage the services of counsel and incur attorney' fees and
expenses of litigation. Testimonial and documentary evidence'" have been pres nted and
offered showing that as of 2002, Appellant has already paid its counsel twe ty seven
thousand one hundred sixty seven and 35/100 us dollars (US$ 27,167.35). Thi evidence
was not disputed by the Appellees. Accordingly, this Office finds that the App llant can
recover the amount of five hundred thousand pesos (p500,000.OO) as pa
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.
pptnes
the Supreme Court ruled that:
"In a long line of decisions, this Court has held that the claimant for moral damages must present concrete proof to justify its award, thus:
. . . while no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court (Art. 2216), it is, nevertheless, essential that the claimant satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage (Art. 2217) and its causal relation to defendant's acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. xxx
Moreover, as a general rule, moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses. It cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system."
In this instance, there is no factual claim that can be the basis of the grant of
moral damages. What the witnesses of the Appellant proved is the existence of unfair
competition and not the tarnished reputation of the Appellant. The Appella t should
have offered factual evidence proving that the acts of Appellees have b mirched
38 G.R. No. L-67970, 15 January 1988. 39 See Exhibit ZZZZ. ~o G. R. No. 125838,10 June 2003.
in-n-out vs. hwani page 140 16j
1,1
i' ,
" I'
Appellant's reputation resulting to actual injury to the Appellant. In the absen e of such
evidence, this Office cannot just grant moral damages and is inclined to apply e general
rule that moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation.
..,
Finally, under Section 157, the products of Appellees including the lab Is, signs,
prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and materials used by them in commit9ng unfair ~
II
I
III
i
competition should be seized and disposed of outside the channels of commerct.
\ Wherefore, premIses considered, the Appellees are held guilty f unfair
competition. Accordingly, Decision No. 2003-02 dated 22 December 2003 's hereby
MODIFIED as follows:
Appellees are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay Appellant:
1. Damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWELVE
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR AND
28/100 (P212,S74.28);
2. Exemplary damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (PSOO,OOO.OO).
3. Attorney's fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PSOO,OOO.OO).
All products of Appellees iocluding the labels, signs, print>, packages, ~ppers, receptacles and materials used by them in committing unfair competition s~ould be
without compensation of any sort be seized and disposed of outside the chrnels of
l
Il
ilII
1I I 1. e
commerce. i,
I
t!
in-n-out v,_1hwani
page 15 ot16
\
1
1 f t
J
.
lj
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of Bureau of Le al Affairs
for appropriate action, and the records be returned to her for proper di position.
Further, let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Documentation, Infor tion and ~ 1t
\
Technology Transfer Bureau for their information and records purposes.
SO ORDERED.
DEC 2 3 2:/5 Makati City.
I
in-n-out vs. hwani page16 0 16
i