DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The October 1, 2013 Decision and June 30, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 117835 are AFFIRMED.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THE SUPREME COURT SAID THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST PETITIONER FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION. HIS PRODUCT, A MEDICATED FACIAL CREAM SOLD TO THE PUBLIC IS CONTAINED IN THE SAME OVAL-SHAPED CONTAINER WHICH HAD THE MARK CHIN CHUN SU AS THAT OF RESPONDENT.

BUT PETITIONER INDICATED IN HIS LABEL THE NAME OF THE MANUFACTURER?

EVEN THEN. AN ORDINARY PURCHASER WOULD NOT NORMALLY INQUIRE ABOUT THE MANUFACTURER.

Here, petitioners’ product which is a medicated facial cream sold to the public is contained in the same pink oval-shaped container which had the mark “Chin Chun Su,” as that of respondent. While petitioners indicated in their product the manufacturer’s name, the same does not change the fact that it is confusingly similar to respondent’s product in the eyes of the public. As aptly found by the appellate court, an ordinary purchaser would not normally inquire about the manufacturer of the product. 55 Petitioners’ product and that solely distributed by respondent are similar in the following respects “l. both are medicated facial creams; 2. both are contained in pink, oval-shaped containers; and 3. both contain the trademark “Chin Chun Su” x x x The similarities far outweigh the differences. The general appearance of (petitioners’) product is confusingly similar to (respondent).”56 Verily, the acts complained of against petitioners constituted the offense of Unfair Competition and probable cause exists to hold them for trial, contrary to the findings ofRTC Branch 46.

WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION?

THEY ARE: CONFUSING SIMILARITY IN THE GENERAL APPEARANCE OF THE GOODS AND INTENT TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC AND DEFRAUD A COMPETITOR.

HOW TO DETERMINE CONFUSING SIMILARITY?

NOT NECESSARILY FROM THE MARKS BUT FROM OTHER FACTORS LIKE IN PACKAGING OR PRESENTATION OF THE GOODS?

HOW TO DETERMINE LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION?

BASED ON PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.

HOW TO DETERMINE INTENT TO DECEIVE AND DEFRAUD?

FROM SIMILARITY OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE GOODS.

The essential elements of an action for unfair competlt10n are: (1) confusing similarity in the general appearance of the goods, and (2) intent to deceive the public and defraud a competitor. 52 The confusing similarity may or may not result from similarity in the marks, but may result from other external factors in the packaging or presentation of the goods. Likelihood of confusion of goods or business is a relative concept, to be determined only according to peculiar circumstances of each case. 53 The element of intent to deceive and to defraud may be inferred from the similarity of the appearance of the goods as offered for sale to the public.54

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

scd-2021-0042-elidad-kho-and-violeta-kho-vs.-summerville-general-merchandising-co.-inc.Download

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.