Scribd
Upload
74 views

FACTS: Petitioner Assails The Decision

This case involves a dispute between Unilever Philippines and Procter & Gamble Philippines over television commercials using similar "double tug" or "tac-tac" key visuals. P&G filed a complaint alleging that Unilever's commercial for its laundry detergent imitated P&G's distinctive key visual. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's issuance of a preliminary injunction preventing Unilever from airing the disputed commercials. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that P&G held copyright over its key visual from the moment of its creation, regardless of registration, and was entitled to injunctive relief to prevent irreparable damage from the continuing airing of the allegedly infringing commercials

Uploaded by

Rizal Daujr Tingkahan III
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
74 views

FACTS: Petitioner Assails The Decision

This case involves a dispute between Unilever Philippines and Procter & Gamble Philippines over television commercials using similar "double tug" or "tac-tac" key visuals. P&G filed a complaint alleging that Unilever's commercial for its laundry detergent imitated P&G's distinctive key visual. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's issuance of a preliminary injunction preventing Unilever from airing the disputed commercials. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that P&G held copyright over its key visual from the moment of its creation, regardless of registration, and was entitled to injunctive relief to prevent irreparable damage from the continuing airing of the allegedly infringing commercials

Uploaded by

Rizal Daujr Tingkahan III
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

3.1 Unilever vs. Court of Appeals & Proctor and Gamble Philippines (G.R. No.

119280)

FACTS: Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in Unilever Philippines (PRC), Inc. v.
Honorable Fernando V.  Gorospe, Jr. and Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. (P&GP)  which issued a writ
of preliminary injunction against it enjoining petitioner from using and airing, until further orders of the
court, certain television commercials for its laundry products claimed to be identical or similar to its
double tug or tac-tac key visual.
  Petitioner alleges that the writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court (and
affirmed by the CA) without any evidence of private respondents clear and unmistakable right to the
writ. Petitioner further contends that the preliminary injunction issued against it already disposed of the
main case without trial, thus denying petitioner of any opportunity to present evidence on its behalf.
The antecedents show that on August 24, 1994, P&G filed a complaint for injunction with damages
against Unilever alleging that a P&G subsidiary in Italy used a key visual in the advertisement of its
laundry detergent and bleaching products. This key visual known as the double-tug or tac-tac
demonstration shows the fabric being held by both hands and stretched sideways. P&G has used the
same distinctive tac-tac key visual to local consumers in the Philippines. Substantially and materially
imitating the aforesaid tac-tac key visual of P&GP and in blatant disregard of P&GPs intellectual property
rights, Unilever started airing a 60 second TV commercial of its Breeze Powerwhite laundry product called
Porky. The said TVC included a stretching visual presentation and sound effects almost [identical] or
substantially similar to P&GPs tac-tac key visual.

ISSUE: Whether the CA acted without or In excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the writ of PI

RULING: No. Unilever does not deny that the questioned TV advertisements are substantially similar
to P&GPs double tug or tac-tac key visual. However, it submits that P&GP is not entitled to the relief
demanded, which is to enjoin petitioner from airing said TV advertisements, for the reason that petitioner
has Certificates of Copyright Registration for which advertisements while P&GP has none with respect to
its double-tug or tac-tac key visual. In other words, it is petitioners contention that P&GP is not entitled
to any protection because it has not registered with the National Library the very TV commercials which it
claims have been infringed by petitioner.
We disagree. Section 2 of PD 49 stipulates that the copyright for a work or intellectual creation
subsists from the moment of its creation. Accordingly, the creator acquires copyright for his work right
upon its creation. Contrary to petitioners contention, the intellectual creators exercise and enjoyment of
copyright for his work and the protection given by law to him is not contingent or dependent on any
formality or registration. Therefore, taking the material allegations of P&GP’s verified Complaint in the
context of PD 49, it cannot be seriously doubted that at least, for purposes of determining whether
preliminary injunction should issue during the pendency of the case, P&GP is entitled to the injunctive
relief prayed for in its Complaint.
There was of course extreme urgency for the court a quo to act on plaintiffs application for
preliminary injunction. The airing of TV commercials is necessarily of limited duration only. Without such
temporary relief, any permanent injunction against the infringing TV advertisements of which P&GP may
possibly succeed in getting after the main case is finally adjudicated could be illusory if by then such
advertisements are no longer used or aired by petitioner. It is therefore not difficult to perceive the
possible irreparable damage which P&GP may suffer if respondent Judge did not act promptly on its
application for preliminary injunction.

You might also like