Facts:: Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
 
 Tejano, Daryl Noel
Del Monte Corporation v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Petitioner, through its agent, filed an action against Sunshine Sauce Manufacturing Industries(SSMI) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The action was based on the reportsreceived b the petitioner that the SSMI was using its e!clusivel designed bottles and a logoconfusingl similar to "el Monte#s. SSMI alleged that it had long ceased to use the "el Monte$ottles and that its logo was substantiall different from the "el Monte %ogo and would notconfuse the buing public to the detriment of the petitioners.%ower &ourt'The &ourt dismissed the complaint and held that there was indeed substantial differencebetween the logos or trademarks of the parties and that the defendant had ceased using thepetitioners# bottles.
Issue:
hether or not the SSMI did commit trademark infringement and unfair competition against thePetitioner
Ruling:
*
st
 issue'The Supreme &ourt held that
 
In determining whether two trademarks are confusingl similar, thetwo marks in their entiret as the appear in the respective labels must be considered in relation tothe goods to which the are attached+ the discerning ee of the observer must focus not onl on thepredominant words but also on the other features appearing on both labels. It has been correctl held that sidebside comparison is not the final test of similarit.
Suchcomparison re-uires a careful scrutin to determine in what points the labels of the products differ.
 It hasbeen held that in making purchases, the consumer must depend upon his recollection of theappearance of the product which he intends to purchase.
nlike the /udge who has ample time tominutel e!amine the labels in -uestion in the comfort of his sala, the ordinar shopper does noten/o the same opportunit.
 0t that, even if the labels were anal1ed together it is not difficult to see that the Sunshine label is acolorable imitation of the "el Monte trademark. The predominant colors used in the "el Monte labelare green and redorange, the same with Sunshine. The word 2catsup2 in both bottles is printed inwhite and the stle of the print3letter is the same. 0lthough the logo of Sunshine is not a tomato, thefigure nevertheless appro!imates that of a tomato.4
nd
 issue'The Supreme &ourt finds that the SSMI is not guilt of infringement for having used the plasticbottles. The reason is that the configuration of the said bottle was merel registered in theSupplemental 5egister. 6ence, the petitioner cannot claim e!clusive use thereof because it has notbeen registered in the Principal 5egister. 6owever, we find that Sunshine, despite the man choicesavailable to it and notwithstanding that the caution 2"el Monte &orporation, 7ot to be 5efilled2 wasembossed on the bottle, still opted to use the petitioners8 bottle to market a product which Philpackalso produces. This clearl shows the private respondent8s bad faith and its intention to capitali1e onthe latter8s reputation and goodwill and pass off its own product as that of "el Monte.
Scribd
You're Reading a Preview

Upload your documents to download.

Or

Become a Scribd member to read and download full documents.

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505