PATENTS

Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v.

Shoemart, Incorporated and North Edsa
Marketing, Incorporated, GR No.
148222, August 15, 2003
The patent law has a three-fold purpose: first, patent law
seeks to foster and reward invention; second, it
promotes disclosures of inventions to stimulate further
innovation and to permit the public to practice the
invention once the patent expires; third, the stringent
requirements for patent protection seek to ensure that
ideas in the public domain remain there for the free use
of the public.

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd.

v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 121267,
October 23, 2001

Smith Kline Beckman Corporation v.

Court of Appeals, GR No. 126627,
August 14, 2003
The doctrine of Equivalents requires
satisfaction of the function-means-and-result
test, the patentee having the burden to show
that all three components of such
equivalency test are met.

Rosario C. Maguan v. Court of Appeals, GR

No. L-45101, November 28, 1986
Domiciano A. Aguas v. De Leon, GR No. L32160, January 30, 1982
Pascual Dodines v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
97343, September 13, 1993
Creser Precision Systems, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 118708, February 2, 1998
Angelita Manzano v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
113388, September 5, 1997

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Inc. v.

Court of Appeals, GR No. 121867, July 24,
1997
Roberto L. Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals,
GR No. 115106, March 15, 1996
Gerardo Samson, Jr. v. Felipe Tarroza and
Director of Patents, GR No. L-20354, July 28,
1969

TRADEMARKS

Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,

GR No. 103543, July 5, 1993
San Miguel Corporation (SMC) filed a
complaint against Asia Brewery Inc. (ABI) for
infringement of trademark and unfair
competition on account of the latters BEER
PALE PILSEN or BEER NA BEER product which
has been competing with SMCs SAN MIGUEL
PALE PILSEN for share of the local beer
market. SMCs trademark is a rectangular
design bordered by what appears to be
minute grains arranged in rows of three in
which there appear in each corner hop
designs. The dominant feature is the phrase
San Miguel written horizontally at the
upper portion. Below are the words Pale
Pilsen written diagonally across the middle
of the rectangular design. In between are
coat of arms and the phrase Expertly
Brewed. The S in San and the M of
Miguel, P of Pale and Pilsen are
written in Gothic letters.

Further, SMC claims that ABI passes off its

products as that of SMCs. The trade dress
of BEER PALE PILSEN is confusingly similar
to its SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN because both
are bottled in 320 ml. steinie type, ambercolored bottles with white rectangular labels.

On the other hand, ABIs trademark is a

rectangular design bordered by what appear
to be buds of flowers with leaves. The
dominant feature is Beer written across the
upper portion of the rectangular design. The
phrase Pale Pilsen appears immediately
below in smaller block letters. Immediately
below Pale Pilsen is the statement written
in three lines Especially brewed and bottled
by (first line), Asia Brewery Incorporated
(second line), and Philippines (third line).

Rule on San Miguels charge for infringement

of trademark and unfair competition.

Answer: First, there is no infringement of

trademark. The likelihood of confusion is
remote. The dominant feature of SMCs
trademark is the name of the product: SAN
MIGUEL PALE PILSEN, written in white Gothic
letters with elaborate serifs at the beginning
and end of the letters S and M on an
amber background across the upper portion
of the rectangular design.

On the other hand, the dominant feature of

ABIs trademark is the name: BEER PALE
PILSEN, with the word BEER written in large
amber letter, larger than any of the letters
found in the SMC label.

The word BEER does not appear in SMCs

trademark, just as the words SAN MIGUEL
do not appear in ABIs trademark. Neither in
sound, spelling or appearance can BEER
PALE PILSEN be said to be confusingly similar
to SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN. No one who
purchases BEER PALE PILSEN can possibly
deceived that it is SAN MIGUEL PALE PILSEN.

Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation

v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 100098,
December 29, 1995
Bristol Myers Co. v. Director of Patents, GR
No. L-21587, May 19, 1966
Societes Des Produits Nestle, SA v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 112012, April 4, 2001
McDonalds Corporation v. LC Big Mak
Burgers, Inc., GR No.143993, August 18,
2004
Shangri-la International Hotel Management,
Ltd., et. al. v. Developers Group of
Companies, Inc., GR No. 159938, March 31,
2006
McDonalds Corporation v. MacJoy Fastfood
Corporation, GR No. 166115, February 2,
2007
Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. v. Tony Lim, GR No.
162311, December 4, 2008
In-n-Out Burger, Inc. v. Sehwani,
Incorporated and/or Benitas Frites, Inc., GR
No. 179127, December 24, 2008
Espiritu v. Petron Corporation and Carmen J.
Doloiras, GR No. 170891, November 24,
2009
Prosource International, Inc. v. Horphag
Research Management SA, GR No. 180073,
November 25, 2009
Coffee Partners, Inc. v. San Francisco Coffee
& Roastery, Inc., GR No. 169504, March 3,
2010
Chester Uyco, et. al. v. Vicente Lo, GR No.
202423, January 28, 2013
Victorio Diaz v. People, GR No. 180677,
February 18, 2013
Birkenstock GmbH v. Phil Shoe Marketing, GR
No. 194307, November 29, 2013
Willaware Products Corp v. Jesicrhris
Manufacturing Corp., GR No. 195549,
September 3, 2014
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum, et. al. v. Romars
International, GR No. 189669, February 16,
2015
COPYRIGHT
Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v.

Shoemart, Incorporated and North Edsa

Marketing, Incorporated, GR No. 148222,
August 15, 2003
Kho v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 115758,
March 19, 2002
Ching v. Salinas, GR No. 161295, June 29,
2005
Sambar v. Levi Strauss, GR No. 132604,
March 3, 2002
Sanrio Co., Limited v. Edgar Lim, GR No.
168662, February 19, 2008
NBI-Microsoft Corporation, et. al. v. Judy
Hwang, et. al., GR No. 147043, June 21, 2005

Manly Sportswear Manufacturing, Inc. v.

Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports
Center, GR No. 165306, September 20, 2005
Pacita I. Habana, et. al. v. Felicidad C. Robles
and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc., GR No.
131522, July 19, 1999
Francisco G. Joaquin, Jr. and BJ Productions,
Inc. v. Drilon, et. al., GR No. 108946, January
28, 1999
Filipino Society of Composers, Authors, and
Publishers, Inc. v. Benjamin Tan, GR No. L36402, March 16, 1987