Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Case Digest ACCLAW4

    Uploaded by

    Micah Zia
    This case involved a trademark infringement dispute between E. & J. Gallo Winery and The Andresons Group (respondents) and Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco (petitioners). The respondents sued the petitioners for using the trademark "GALLO" for cigarettes. The court found that the petitioners had been using the GALLO mark for cigarettes for almost 20 years before the respondents filed their suit. Given this long delay, the court ruled that equity required a decision in favor of the petitioners. The court also found no evidence that the petitioners intended to capitalize on the respondents' goodwill or mislead consumers, since wines and cigarettes are totally unrelated products. Therefore,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest ACCLAW4

    Uploaded by

    Micah Zia
    38 views2 pages
    This case involved a trademark infringement dispute between E. & J. Gallo Winery and The Andresons Group (respondents) and Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco (petitioners). The respondents sued the petitioners for using the trademark "GALLO" for cigarettes. The court found that the petitioners had been using the GALLO mark for cigarettes for almost 20 years before the respondents filed their suit. Given this long delay, the court ruled that equity required a decision in favor of the petitioners. The court also found no evidence that the petitioners intended to capitalize on the respondents' goodwill or mislead consumers, since wines and cigarettes are totally unrelated products. Therefore,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a trademark infringement dispute between E. & J. Gallo Winery and The Andresons Group (respondents) and Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco (petitioners). The respondents sued the petitioners for using the trademark "GALLO" for cigarettes. The court found that the petitioners had been using the GALLO mark for cigarettes for almost 20 years before the respondents filed their suit. Given this long delay, the court ruled that equity required a decision in favor of the petitioners. The court also found no evidence that the petitioners intended to capitalize on the respondents' goodwill or mislead consumers, since wines and cigarettes are totally unrelated products. Therefore,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views2 pages

    Case Digest ACCLAW4

    Uploaded by

    Micah Zia
    This case involved a trademark infringement dispute between E. & J. Gallo Winery and The Andresons Group (respondents) and Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco (petitioners). The respondents sued the petitioners for using the trademark "GALLO" for cigarettes. The court found that the petitioners had been using the GALLO mark for cigarettes for almost 20 years before the respondents filed their suit. Given this long delay, the court ruled that equity required a decision in favor of the petitioners. The court also found no evidence that the petitioners intended to capitalize on the respondents' goodwill or mislead consumers, since wines and cigarettes are totally unrelated products. Therefore,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Mighty Corporation and La Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. vs. E. & J.

    Gallo Winery
    and The Andresons Group, Inc. [G.R. No. 154342. July 14, 2004]

    Facts:

     E. & J. Gallo Winery and The Andresons Group, Inc. sued Mighty Corporation and La
    Campana Fabrica De Tabaco, Inc. in the Makati RTC for trademark and tradename
    infringement and unfair competition, with a prayer for damages and preliminary
    injunction.

    Issue:

    Whether or not petitioners (MIGHTY CORPORATION and LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE


    TABACO, INC., ) were liable for trademark infringement, unfair competition and damages.

    Held:

    No. petitioners are not liable for trademark infringement, unfair competition and damages.

    Respondents claim that GALLO wines and GALLO cigarettes flow through the same channels
    of trade, that is, retail trade. If respondent’s assertion is true, then both goods co-existed
    peacefully for a considerable period of time. It took respondents almost 20 years to know about
    the existence of GALLO cigarettes and sue petitioners for trademark infringement. Given, on
    one hand, the long period of time that petitioners were engaged in the manufacture, marketing,
    distribution and sale of GALLO cigarettes and, on the other, respondents delay in enforcing their
    rights (not to mention implied consent, acquiescence or negligence) we hold that equity, justice
    and fairness require us to rule in favor of petitioners. The scales of conscience and reason tip far
    more readily in favor of petitioners than respondents. Moreover, there exists no evidence that
    petitioners employed malice, bad faith or fraud, or that they intended to capitalize on
    respondent’s goodwill in adopting the GALLO mark for their cigarettes which are totally
    unrelated to respondents GALLO wines. Thus, we rule out trademark infringement on the part of
    petitioners.

    Under Section 29 of the Trademark Law, any person who employs deception or any other means
    contrary to good faith by which he passes off the goods manufactured by him or in which he
    deals, or his business, or services for those of the one having established such goodwill, or who
    commits any acts calculated to produce said result, is guilty of unfair competition. It includes the
    following acts: (a) Any person, who in selling his goods shall give 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 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; (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; (c)
    Any person who shall make any false statement in the course of 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.

    You might also like