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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Mighty Corporation V Gallo Winery (GR 154342, 2004)

    Uploaded by

    oscar kho
    1) Gallo Winery sued Mighty Corporation and La Campana for trademark infringement regarding their use of the "Gallo" trademark on cigarettes. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that there was no trademark infringement because wines and cigarettes are non-competing products that are highly distinguishable from one another in terms of their physical attributes, composition, target markets, and methods of consumption. 3) While the trademarks were similar, the significant differences between wines and cigarettes meant there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source or origin of the goods.

    Copyright:

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

    Mighty Corporation V Gallo Winery (GR 154342, 2004)

    Uploaded by

    oscar kho
    26 views2 pages
    1) Gallo Winery sued Mighty Corporation and La Campana for trademark infringement regarding their use of the "Gallo" trademark on cigarettes. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that there was no trademark infringement because wines and cigarettes are non-competing products that are highly distinguishable from one another in terms of their physical attributes, composition, target markets, and methods of consumption. 3) While the trademarks were similar, the significant differences between wines and cigarettes meant there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source or origin of the goods.

    Original Title

    5. Mighty Corporation v Gallo Winery (GR 154342, 2004)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Gallo Winery sued Mighty Corporation and La Campana for trademark infringement regarding their use of the "Gallo" trademark on cigarettes. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that there was no trademark infringement because wines and cigarettes are non-competing products that are highly distinguishable from one another in terms of their physical attributes, composition, target markets, and methods of consumption. 3) While the trademarks were similar, the significant differences between wines and cigarettes meant there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source or origin of the goods.

    Copyright:

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

    Mighty Corporation V Gallo Winery (GR 154342, 2004)

    Uploaded by

    oscar kho
    1) Gallo Winery sued Mighty Corporation and La Campana for trademark infringement regarding their use of the "Gallo" trademark on cigarettes. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that there was no trademark infringement because wines and cigarettes are non-competing products that are highly distinguishable from one another in terms of their physical attributes, composition, target markets, and methods of consumption. 3) While the trademarks were similar, the significant differences between wines and cigarettes meant there was no likelihood of confusion among purchasers as to the source or origin of the goods.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    MIGHTY CORPORATION V.

    GALLO WINERY
    (G.R. No. 154342, July 14, 2004)
    On Property

    FACTS:
    Gallo Winery, producer of wines and brandy products which is based in California, US, registered its Gallo
    wine trademark in the Philippines in 1971. On the other hand, Mighty Corporation and La Campana and
    their sister company, Tobacco Industries of the Philippines, are engaged in the cultivation, manufacture,
    distribution and sale of tobacco products for which they have been using the Gallo cigarette trademark
    since 1973.

    In May 1984, Tobacco Industries assigned the Gallo cigarette trademark to La Campana who, in turn,
    applied for trademark registration in the Philippine Patent Office. The National Library subsequently issued
    Certificate of Copyright Registration No. 5834 for La Campana to have a lifetime copyright claim over Gallo
    cigarette labels. Subsequently, La Campana authorized Mighty Corporation to manufacture and sell
    cigarettes bearing the Gallo trademark. BIR approved Mighty Corporations use of the cigarette brand,
    under licensing agreement with Tobacco Industries and the Gallo Special Menthol cigarette brand.

    Gallo sued Mighty and La Campana in the RTC for trademark and trade name infringement and unfair
    competition and prayed for injunction. RTC denied the prayer and subsequent MR for lack of merit. CA
    likewise dismissed the case. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUES:
    W/N there was trademark infringement

    RULING:
    NO.

    RATIO:
    The SC reaffirmed the doctrine that the use of an identical mark does not, by itself, lead to a legal
    conclusion that there is trademark infringement.

    A crucial issue in any trademark infringement case is the likelihood of confusion, mistake or deceit as to the
    identity, source or origin of the goods, or identity of the business as a consequence of using a certain mark.
    There are two types of confusion in trademark infringement, namely, "confusion of goods'' and "confusion
    of business." Confusion of goods is evident where the litigants are actually in competition; but confusion of
    business may arise between non-competing interests as well. Thus, there is likelihood of confusion when,
    although the goods of the parties are different, they are so related that the defendant's product can
    reasonably be assumed to originate from the plaintiff.

    In determining likelihood of confusion, the following factors were considered: a) the resemblance
    between the trademarks; b) the similarity of the goods to which the trademarks are attached; c) the likely
    effect on the purchaser; and d) the registrant's express or implied consent and other fair and equitable
    considerations.

    In this case, the similarity between the parties' Gallo trademarks was overridden by their different features
    like color schemes, art works and other markings of both products. It also found that there are other
    significant differences between the two products such that they are highly distinguishable from one another
    in terms of consumption, physical attributes, composition, and target market.

    Based on these distinctions, the SC declared that wines and cigarettes are non-competing and totally
    unrelated products which are not likely to cause confusion vis-à-vis the goods or business of Gallo Winery
    and Mighty Corporation, et al. Thus, even though similar marks are used, there is no trademark
    infringement if the public does not expect the plaintiff to make or sell the same class of goods as those
    made or sold by the defendant.

    You might also like